Prev
Next

Australia, it’s time to ditch the backyard

Tory Maguire

by Tory Maguire

28 May 06:00am

Must Reads

If sports movies have taught us anything, NSW will win - this is a caption

If sports movies have taught us anything, NSW will win

51

Schapelle has done her time - this is a caption

Schapelle has done her time

182

Do women need to know when to walk away? - this is a caption

Do women need to know when to walk away?

74

Filed under: Big Australia, Development, Population, Society

131 comments

The NSW Government this week announced new zoning for some of our more leafy suburbs, allowing for the development of medium and high rise apartment buildings along the North Shore rail line.

You could fit a few more people in here.

You’d think building apartments near railway stations in a city choked by cars and a rental crisis would be a good idea, but from the reaction you’d think they’d authorised the concreting of a National Park.

While Federal Politicians argue about Big Australia, and just how big is Big, the issue of density has stayed in the sphere of the local skirmish. And while people complain about the urban sprawl of Australian cities, we’re still acutely averse to the concept of raising our children without the luxury of our own back yards. And that’s what back yards are, a luxury. Well a luxury that you have to mow.

The National Trust says the new Ku-ring-gai Town Centres Local Environment plan, which allows for the construction of 4500 new apartments spread across six suburbs, will destroy the area’s character.

The Sydney Morning Herald ran a graphic of the new plans entitled: “There goes the neighbourhood”. And it also interviewed Amy Lee, proprietor of the Roseville Cinemas, who said while the plan would be excellent for business, she’d prefer something “smaller”, oh, and they should build more car parks…

On radio residents of St Ives talked about crime would rise and their ideal lifestyles would be gone. And the Ku-ring-gai council has gone ballistic.

I don’t want to just pick on the people of the North Shore line, they’re not alone. But the ridiculous reaction got me thinking about population density when it’s done properly.

Also out this week was the latest Mercer Worldwide Quality of Living Survey.

On a broad criteria that includes, among others, crime rates, air quality, waste removal, schools and recreation, Sydney came in a very respectable 10 on the world-wide rankings.

I grabbed the population densities of the top ten to compare them and came up with this:

Population density of the top ten cities in the Mercer Worldwide Quality of Living Survey

With the exception of Auckland, Sydney has a much lower density than the cities that beat it for quality of living.

The winner Vienna squeezes almost twice as many people into the same geographical area as Sydney. Vancouver has 5335 people per square km, compared to Sydney’s 2058.

Zurich and Munich also have significantly more people living on top of each other than we do, and no one’s accusing them of having no character.

Apartment precincts done badly are hardly appealing. But if we get it right, and infill our biggest cities with nice places to live, surrounded by services, schools, transport, and common green space, the only risk to the character of our suburbs is that they might become more vibrant.

Instead we want to have our cake and eat it too. We want our transport and infrastructure systems to cover an ever expanding area while complaining about urban sprawl.

We want our kids to be part of the community, while fencing them into a back yard. And we want quality communal green spaces but we’re not prepared to give up a bit of our own.

It’s 1950s thinking about a 2050s problem.

Most commented

427Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
375There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
353"Gifting", "journey" and other words we hate
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
304Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
262Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.

131 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Edward James says:

      06:52am | 28/05/10

      The cities which have a higher density than Sydney are not populated with Australians who have not yet got used to living in each other’s pockets. The people trying to push high population densities on us are developers with governments in their pockets, who are willing to cut cost and ignore the problems that cost cutting creates. To suggest there is a correct way to pack people in won’t be supported by using examples from predominately places where the identified cities existed for several hundred years.  At some point we here need to live the Australian way and pace ourselves accordingly. We could be self sufficient by being our own primary and secondary producers. Consuming our own products the process would insulate us from that madding crowd intent on rushing around consuming more and more. because theirs is an idea we need growth. The world has for several hundred years been destroying itself like one giant ponzie scheme. It is time to opt out.

      Reply

    • Craig Lambie says:

      09:27am | 28/05/10

      Density is good, @Edward James you obviously haven’t lived OS before and seen the real benefits of it.  Just another ignorant Australia comes to mind in reading you post here.
      Tory has made some good points, and comparing Sydney to Vancouver or Vienna is a great way to show how it could be done.
      It is not the Developers that are pushing for higher population, they are just the ones benefiting from it.  It is us, our way of life, our image to the rest of the world, and the fact that we are a rich country that encourages people to move here.  Also the Demand for skilled labour by the Mining companies (maybe the Super Tax will dampen that a little) and other industry. 

      Do you own your own home? Do you own Shares? Have Super, and just let it get invested as they please, not in an ethical or sustainable fund choice?
      If you answered yes to any of these, then you are just as much the cause of the population growth as the next person.

      The Fed Pollies are trying to manage the demand for Australias way of life, the State Pollies are trying to manage the demand for housing and affordability, the local Pollies are blocking people from coming to their neighbourhoods.

      I think it is hilarious when I have friends in a neighbourhood that think we should have an open door immigration policy, and whinge about the treatment of boat people…on one hand.. and on the other, block high density development on transit corridors….. for some reason people can’t seem to grasp the connection between things in life… bigger picture… lets start looking at it.  Write to your Polies, Board of Directors and Super Company to make your opinions known, only then can you complain.

    • Who says:

      10:22am | 28/05/10

      Craig,

      People are entitled to be worried about whether high density living will be handled appropriately in this country given that both governments consistently prove that they couldn’t organise a party at a brewery.  Sure, it may be possible to achieve successful high density living as shown by the examples (all places I have not been so not commenting either way).  However, in my experience (have lived in 12 cities outside Australia) there are far more examples of what I would call poor quality of life as a result. 

      If you like the results of high density housing that is fine and you have plenty of opportunity to put your money where your mouth is and move into a high rise apartment.  However, many people (including my wife and I) have lived that life style and have chosen instead to live in green, leafy, friendly suburbs.

    • Paul says:

      10:40am | 28/05/10

      Agreed Edward. Tory forgot to mention that most Sydney people look like some of the most unhappiest (rage-filled) people in Australia! And @Craig has joined the blind Labor/Liberal religion of rampant growth is good and unhappy sardine impersonations is sickly funny. @Craig and Tory also forget that NSW Labor and their erstwhile so-called Liberal “opposition” punching consistently below their weight, haven’t shown any ability for at least a decade, to provide any sort of leadership, integrity, policy or confidence about current - let alone - future planning. You are basing your current and future hopes on Sydney on faith- based fantasy - nothing more. Which is cool, considering the wacko Christian Right faction of NSW Liberals will be running this fine basket case of a state in 12-24 months. Out of the frying pan into fundamentalism! go Monty Python… Try to funny it up at least Tory!

      Sydney is as hamstrung and severely limited by a long term political and a democratic crisis, as much as any other factor… no amount of graphs or rosy glasses can dispute that!

    • Edward James says:

      10:40am | 28/05/10

      Please Craig let an ignorant Australian who hasnot yet been off the East coast of my country put you straight on a few things. I am involved in rallies to discourage government support for developers who are selfishly pushing for high density living. I stand up because I enjoy those freedoms which are available to families who are fortunate enough to live on a quarter acre block. Not just on the north shore but in so many places across this wide brown land.  And I can see the error in local government allowing developers to load up already overstressed infrastructure, hospitals, schools,  power, roads, storm water drainage, sewerage with two and three times their designed capacity.  I have lived on main streets in the middle of central business districts most of my life right here in NSW and I see what high density living dose to our Australian lifestyle. I have advocated for years now that all parking on any developement including housing be provided on private property I own comercial property and i understand the cost but we cant keep parking on what is already inadequate road system. I am alone in calling for that, but I am not wrong.  I don’t doubt people live in high density and love it.  But they are not everybody, not yet anyway. I have a pretty good grasp of the big picture Craig I have been buying full page ads in my local paper for almost a year now enguageing politicians at the Federal State and Local level. I am not happy that such a small number of politically active people are running the whole show.  I have spent over four hundred days and many nights outside the oldest parliament in this country exercising my democratic rights.  One thing I do believe in is there needs to be more public trust journalist publishing local material for their own communities because we are in danger of losing community, falling out of touch. We are not rabbits and we don’t take well to living in concrete rabbit warrens. Thanks for your input. Cheers Edward James

    • NPR says:

      01:02pm | 28/05/10

      No Edward James you are incorrect.

      Developers aren’t pushing anything onto us, we are willfully buying up houses in the estates they design. If such urban sprawl were so undesirable and had to be forcefully ‘pushed on us’, then there would be no demand for these houses/properties and they wouldn’t sell. But that just isn’t the case (except in your ivory tower).

      The fact that government intervention into the market is required to limit urban sprawl, with their awful green wedges, demonstrates the demand for urban sprawl housing and what “Australians” really want.

      The price mechanism does not lie Edward, so don’t act as if you speak for all Australians which you clearly don’t.

    • KD says:

      04:12pm | 28/05/10

      I agree wholeheartedly, Edward.  Who wants to become overpopulated as well as being underserviced?  I wonder if Tori did a transport comparison as well?  Might have been useful to provide a complete picture.

    • Tina says:

      11:21pm | 28/05/10

      I am living in Belgium and always find it cute to listen to Aussies mentioning the term ‘population density’ at all. I lived in Australia for years and am convinced you don’t have the same understanding of density. Aussie cities have a wonderful lifestyle. ButI was always stunned by the massive waste of ground in car parks around shopping centres, supermarkets etc. Where you have a sports ground, we have a suburb. So I don’t really think, it’s time for you to complain just yet. Or do you know how it is to witness your neighbour’s sex life in dolby surround?

    • Val Kerrison says:

      09:28am | 29/05/10

      I agree Edward James.  I think that the crowds on the Central Coast stations waiting to commute to Sydney to their work are a visibly affamation too.  The choice;  stacked close to others for 3 hours a day on the train, or live in high density apartments in Sydney?
      Having lived in both high density apartments and houses with space and a backyard - it is only the latter that I can completely relax in and recharge my batteries for another day at the office.  Privacy is so precious.  Don’t throw it away or you just cause more people more stress.

    • Winks says:

      09:48am | 29/05/10

      At the end of the day high density housing will be pushed through due to demands of buyers. My problem with the situation is that not one council or local government has put in a regulated green belt plan. It is well and good to use European cities as an example of successful high density living, however you have neglected to understand that they have put in place a green belt policy to allow good park lands and access to agriculture so that the city population does not have their budgets blown out by expensive produce transportation to market.

      In Australia only 10% of the land mass is good for the production of fresh produce such as vegetables etc and we keep gobbling this land up at a rate that will soon make Australia the most expensive country in the world to live in because we will not have easy access to locally grown food. 

      It is all well and good to have growth, however it must be sustainable, it provide long term stability and be offset with good infrastructure such as water, sewage, electricity, access to food and public transport. At present our growth has been largely unplanned and these base requirements including green belts have been left out of the equation

    • Byro says:

      11:10am | 29/05/10

      @Tina Having lived in Belgium myself, it’s “cute” that you don’t understand how underserviced Sydney is, even in terms of its unreliable or non-existent public transport, 19th century sewage systems, “drinking” water that is drawn in some parts of the city from the Hawkesbury River that has 30 plus sewage plants running into the river? Or that you can be a professional nurse or fireman or service worker and not even afford a house there because of political ineptitude, in a land with plenty of land and building resources?

      It’s also cute that Tory misses the awesome potential Sydney has as a high tech green 21st century city rather than a infrastructure-failing dumping ground for over-migration…

      Having grown up in Sydney I remember a friendly, innovative, community based city not the angst ridden materialistic overblown mess and “international” city it is today…

    • owl says:

      07:15am | 02/06/10

      well saidEdward

    • Justin says:

      07:25am | 28/05/10

      I agree except for one thing. There goes the family dog. For some single people, their companion is all they have. For families, the benefits of the family dog are well studied, and well published. I can see why people aren’t warming to the fact of giving up their backyard when it means giving up furrier members of the family.

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      08:15am | 28/05/10

      Lots of people successfully keep dogs in apartments!

    • Sarah says:

      09:55am | 28/05/10

      I live in a pretty large apartment complex in Ryde and my small part of the building alone has at least five dogs (and probably a few cats and various other pets) and everyone seems happy. I can say that I don’t hear boo from the dogs except for an occasional happy greeting in the elevator or in the common areas when they’re coming in/going out for their walks in the multitude of parkland we have surrounding us. It is a really nice place to live and responsible pet owners and their furry friends enhance that.

    • marley says:

      02:15pm | 28/05/10

      Well, I don’t think you need to worry about the family dog. I’ve lived in a couple of large European cities, and every other apartment had a dog - and we’re not talking mop-dogs either, we’re talking German shepherds, mastiffs, dalmations, collies, boxers, etc.  It can be done.

    • paul says:

      07:28am | 28/05/10

      “fencing them into a backyard”...backyards aren’t detention centres.  I understand the problem but have found my solution in not living in a city.  It’s pretty sweet.

      Reply

    • DM says:

      01:23pm | 28/05/10

      I agree, I live on the Central Coast and we have big backyards, mine has 2 serate areas, one where the dogs are and the granny flat and the other with the pool. Don’t want to be cramped? simple solution, move. it’s also cheaper rates

    • Big Al says:

      11:04am | 29/05/10

      DM, I have moved! It takes my husband 40minutes to an hour by car (on toll road ways) to get to the outskirts of the city (thank you traffic congestion on these toll roadways!). My problem is we moved away from the city to get away from all the crowds and apartments only to find out 2 years later that this very area is going to go through some serious development, with zoning laws being changed to accomadate 60 thousand(!) new dwellings!!! The reason I made the move was so I could have my backyard and get away from the crowds! I have lived all my life in high density (high rise) buildings with the exception of a year when my parents moved to the European country side to take refuge from a revolt that broke out and damaged the many high density streets of my birth country (the one we lived on did not escape either).I will take the country side anytime over high density. What people fail to understand is that the country side over in Europe is as far from city high density living away as our leafy suburbs are from the city. Hence the great infrastructure between the two and why it’s so easy to make the move and commute. I love my backyard! My daughter and I have a ball out there with our dog for most of the sunny days (cold or hot) and it is the most relaxing setting (better than any resort!). It’s not always cheaper rates either. Sigh, we pay more in rates, electricity even on fruit and vegetables (because there isn’t much competition - the 3 different green grocers in our “village” centre are owned by the same guy) than we did in the inner west…

    • DM says:

      05:41pm | 02/06/10

      Big Al, go further out where there are not road tolls on the way

    • Tom says:

      07:33am | 28/05/10

      You neglect to mention the north shore line is almost invariably over crowded, and often delayed. It really isn’t sufficient for carrying many more people, especially since the Epping - Chatswood link was built. Meanwhile, there are plenty of abandoned factories and railyards near Eveleigh/Redfern, which is far closer to the city, which could be converted to inner city apartments.

      And that Mercer quality of living survey is a joke. If you would rather live in Auckland than Sydney or Melbourne, then be my guest. This was the survey that rated Adelaide as having greater livability than Paris, is it not?

      Reply

    • Trent says:

      02:28pm | 28/05/10

      How many people move to Paris, and STAY there? Adelaide and all Australian capitals beat Paris in liveability. Paris is good for a holiday though.

    • Lucy says:

      02:52pm | 28/05/10

      Tom, you’re right.  In peak hour, the trains on the North Shore line are like sardine tins.  However, not building more houses because of the dodgy Sydney transport is not really the answer.

    • Tom says:

      05:24pm | 28/05/10

      Lucy, I would have thought building extra housing when existing transport infrastructure is already inadequate would be counter productive. The upper north shore is not close to the city, and hence extra housing will just increase congestion and car use.

      And Trent, I consider having nothing to do (as in Adelaide) a severe impediment to liveability. Paris ultimately wouldn’t be my choice of city to live in (there are already close to 12 million people in the metro area), but I would take it any day of the week over Adelaide. By the Mercer scale, most small country towns would outrank most major cities. True liveability contains a large dose of je ne said quoi which cannot be assessed objectively.

    • Brigitte says:

      05:45pm | 28/05/10

      well I would definetly prefer to live in Adelaide than Paris

    • Andrew says:

      07:34am | 28/05/10

      Having heard Carolyne Hardwick on the radio discussing this yesterday, I couldn’t help but shudder. She sounded like a spoiled brat being told that Daddy was no longer going to pay for her BMW. It makes me worry that everyone on the North Shore will be perceived that way (if they aren’t already).

      Housing densities are going to rise - that’s the reality. That being said, you’d hope that any building is going to be considerate of the surrounding area, or we’re going to end up with a more dispersed version of the North Shore’s greatest collection of ugly architecture - Macquarie University.

      Finally, regarding this quote:
      “We want our transport and infrastructure systems to cover an ever expanding area while complaining about urban sprawl.”

      Please refererence this article in the Sydney Morning Herald:
      http://www.smh.com.au/national/timetable-cuts-train-services-to-north-shores-populationgrowth-suburbs-20091009-gqwp.html

      Transport and infrastructure might not be able to keep up with the sprawl, but if you’re going to increase population densities, you sure as hell want to make sure you allow the infrastructure to keep up. Either that, or we’re going to have to hire those white gloved men from Japanese subways to pack us all on the trains.

      Reply

    • Russell says:

      07:50am | 28/05/10

      The Herald’s hysterical coverage of this beat-up is because the north shore is where their readers are. And there is a reason why that newspaper is called “granny”

      For “crime” read “foreigners”. For “Meritisation” read “Asianisation”

      The rest of Granny’s readers are in the inner west, where the “have our cake and eat it too” spirit is the governing mantra. Presently poor old Tigers at Rozelle are being blasted out their old home on Victoria Rd because they have had the temerity to suggest some people might like to live there. Close to the city, on a major transport artery, public transport right at hand. Its not such a bizarre thought. Its what bought the gentrifiers to Rozelle in the first place.

      But the Greens dominated Council have declared World War 3 over the relatively modest high rise (there are already more dense high-rises nearby at Balmain Shores). They are doing everything in their power to prevent anyone extra from living in “their” backyard.

      Greenies don’t want anything built anywhere of course, but they are especially appalled by housing that will bring in newcomers “not like them”

      Those pesky newcomers will only take their car parking spaces.

      Reply

    • Earth Mother says:

      08:07am | 28/05/10

      Your comment: Don’t ditch the back yard - just ditch the baby bonus after the second child.  And let all countries have a proper Population Policy before it’s too late.

      Reply

    • DM says:

      01:27pm | 28/05/10

      Do you really think that will stop people having more than 2 children? parents survived on no baby bonus before it was brought in and they will survive after it’s gone and will continue to breed their small armies, what it might hopefully do is stop 15 and 16 year olds getting pregnant or at least reduce the rate

    • Bob H says:

      08:08am | 28/05/10

      You cannot blame elite enclaves wanting to maintain very comfortable and priviledged lifestyles close to the city.  Inconvenient changes for the greater good should only be forced on pezzies and westies, not the Northern Beaches.
      NIMBY-INFAR (Not in my backyard - Its not for RiffRaff )

      Reply

    • acker says:

      08:14am | 28/05/10

      Well at least Sydney is making some attempt at verticle living, which is better than Frank Sartors grubby development planning approvals allowing devopers to offset key urban environmental sites for development with non urban often agricultural land as an offset.

      And by the look of it in the projected 8 million people 2056 Melbourne rather than trying to drive accross the even less dense than Sydney suburban sprawl, you may as well take an airline flight from Avalon to Pakenham, Tullamarine or Essendon

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      08:18am | 28/05/10

      Sigh.

      Another ‘everyone lives in NSW’ article.

      Couldn’t you at least have spread the research across a couple of our major cities?

      The issue is important, and it’s not confined to Sydney (the principle applies even to smallish country towns, not in NSW; townplanners are pushing for higher density living in town centres everywhere), but centralising your article on Sydney invariably means we’re going to descend into ‘oohh but the traffic along X street in the morning is already manic’ discussions rather than looking at the big picture.

      Reply
    • Tory Maguire

      Tory Maguire says:

      08:29am | 28/05/10

      Calm down persephone. So I used a Sydney example, that has been in the news this week. Keep sighing like that and you’ll start hyperventilating.

    • Zeta says:

      09:18am | 28/05/10

      If you’re not in Sydney, you’re camping.

    • acker says:

      09:34am | 28/05/10

      NSW = Newcastle-Sydney-Woolongong and Premier Keneally may as well be referred to as Lord Mayor Keneally…and “persephone” how about putting some links or actual examples up to support your numerous assertions about virtualy every topic, or at least a better structured more detailed argument to support your assertion.

    • persephone says:

      11:14am | 28/05/10

      acker

      I do.

      Whenever someone asks me where I got my information, I provide a link.

      What do you want to know? Or are you just whinging for the sake of it?

    • acker says:

      11:30am | 28/05/10

      OK persephone give us some demonstrated examples of the country towns your talking about. Name them and include population and distance from capital cities ....rock on dude

    • Effie says:

      01:46pm | 28/05/10

      Persephone, do you actually & truly know everything or are you just a big mouth. It seems to me that every subject matter that comes along, you are the expert!!

    • BTS says:

      08:24am | 28/05/10

      I don’t think you have fully understood the implications for one of the foundations upon which this great country was built.  Where will we play cricket???

      Reply

    • Nitzpicker says:

      09:09am | 28/05/10

      @BTS   on the xbox!.

    • Simon the Pieman says:

      09:17am | 28/05/10

      There has never been a better argument for high rise development than it will kill off cricket.  I am now a happy convert to concrete rabbit warren “lifestyle” existence.

    • Shifter says:

      10:32am | 28/05/10

      Nitzpicker - cricket games on the xbox have generally been rubbish!

      Golf on the other hand… imagine how many high-rise apartments you could build on the fairway of the 18th?

    • DM says:

      05:21pm | 28/05/10

      Parks?

    • Nitzpicker says:

      05:38pm | 28/05/10

      @Shifter ,  Totally agree computer cricket is bad i was trying to make fun of the state of kids recreation today, our local tennis court is gone, cricket nets gone, replaced by BBQs so now kids can go and eat and get drunk rather than exercise., as for golf, high rise LINKS? sounds like fun.

    • BTS says:

      05:15pm | 30/05/10

      DM,

      You can’t play backyard cricket in the park.  What about over the fence into the neighbours yard is six and out?

    • DM says:

      01:01pm | 31/05/10

      Sorry BTS I don’t play criket, what happens when you break the neighbours window? how many points is that?

    • Macon Paine says:

      08:36am | 28/05/10

      Dont have much time so just thought i’d bring up a couple of points that drew my attention:
      “But the ridiculous reaction got me thinking about population density when it’s done properly.”
      And there is the achilles heal of your argument. Let me put it bluntly, NSW Labor couldn’t run a hotdog stand. People simply do not trust or believe that these bozo’s are capable of having this “done properly”. You cant just keep cramming people in along existing rail lines (of which we dont have enough), rail lines which run virtually packed trains every few mins (in peak).  Here is a prime example of why this government cannot be trusted,  after 15 years and numerous broken promises they are incapable of delivering a rail line to the Hills District, this district has about 250,000 people, so to put this in perspective Campbelltown which is serviced by rail has a pop of about 150,000.

      “The winner Vienna squeezes almost twice as many people into the same geographical area as Sydney. Vancouver has 5335 people per square km, compared to Sydney’s 2058.”
      You are drawing a false conclusion from these statistics. You neglected to mention anything about their public transport arrangements. So what if they pack more people in per square km? Sydney simply does not have the infastructure to cope with anything close to that, infact Sydney is struggling with its current infastructure (or should I say lack of it). These other cities may have extensive rail networks built to cope with such population densities.

      “Apartment precincts done badly are hardly appealing. But if we get it right, and infill our biggest cities with nice places to live, surrounded by services, schools, transport, and common green space, the only risk to the character of our suburbs is that they might become more vibrant.”
      Exactly the goverment needs to plan better and deliver its promises. Without this everything else goes out the window, including your stange preoccupation with character and vibrancy.

      “We want our transport and infrastructure systems to cover an ever expanding area while complaining about urban sprawl.”
      Why shouldn’t it? That is the role of government. If government is going to allow urban sprawl then they should be building the infastructure to deal with it. People only complain about urban sprawl because infastructure is not being delivered to cope with it.. Our transport systems barely cover Sydney’s existing area, infact there are many areas (including close to the city) where transport just stinks and takes forever to get anywhere eg virtually anywhere along Victoria and Parramatta rds.

      Reply

    • Rowan says:

      08:41am | 28/05/10

      Should of just tweeted:

      NSW wants to have its cake and eat it too. They want their transport and infrastructure systems to cover an ever expanding area while complaining about urban sprawl.

      Reply

    • Chewy says:

      08:41am | 28/05/10

      This is nothing but a failing state government lashing out a safe liberal electorate destroying amenity for locals to the benifit of the largest doners of the ALP.
      As a St Ives resident I can assure you we are not well served by public transport, our roads are gridlocked and have NO rail. How is turning St Ives into a ‘town centre’ (Dumping it with high rises) without any spending on roads and transport not poor planning?
      No council in NSW outside of Sydney city has had more developments than Ku ring gai shoved down its throat already.
      I used to think this state governemt treated people north of the bridge with indifference now I am sure they are out to get them.
      Its a shame in this country we dont value heritage assets more some of the most beautiful streets in the country will be bulldozed but hey as long as the government sticks it to the ‘silvertails’ who cares right?
      Even a lefty like David Marr can sum it up well…
      http://www.smh.com.au/national/friendless-and-furious-kuringgai-fights-for-life-20090918-fvcr.html

      Reply

    • Keef72 says:

      12:50pm | 31/05/10

      People who say it’s a Labor attack on a Liberal electorate really should do some research to see how many extra homes OTHER suburbs will be getting by 2031. I’ve done the research for you:
      The Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai LGAs are to jointly increase their dwelling numbers from 88,000 in 2004 to 108,000 by 2031—up 20,000 or 22.7 per cent—by 2031. 
      The inner west LGAs of Canada Bay, Strathfield, Burwood, Ashfield and Leichhardt have a combined target of 125,000 dwellings—up by almost 30,000 or 31 per cent.
      The LGAs of Parramatta, Auburn, Bankstown, Holroyd and Fairfield have a combined target of 323,000 dwellings—up 94,700 or more than 40 per cent.

      Looks like the Lib voters are getting pretty lightly.

    • Daniel says:

      08:47am | 28/05/10

      Well I have now moved to the North Shore in one of these blocks and so far its quite nice. Apart from all the rich Liberals that are hanging about and attacking the Greens. its pretty good. Why should the North Shore be immune from the spread of development. I thought the Liberals and their supporters were free market people? It looks like the market says that more units need to be built on the North Shore. Get over it.

      Reply

    • Macon Paine says:

      09:10am | 28/05/10

      “Apart from all the rich Liberals that are hanging about and attacking the Greens.”
      Why do you say “rich Liberals”? The greens live in the same area so by your logic that means they should be called rich greens, no wait scratch that lets go with champagne socialists!
      “It looks like the market says that more units need to be built on the North Shore.”
      Fine as long as the infastructure is being built to cope with it into the future, it isn’t.

    • Chewy says:

      09:25am | 28/05/10

      There is nothing free market about autocratic decisions made with sham consultation by an someone who is not elected nor represents the interest of the area.
      Wheres the additional infrastructure?

    • Nicole says:

      09:26am | 28/05/10

      The market? More like the developers and their buddies, the incompetent state Labor government. The North Shore has hardly been immune from the spread of development, it’s already experienced quite a bit of it and you can see the result for yourself if you’ve ever tried to take a train or bus anytime between 7am and 9am.

      I’m sure that there aren’t hundreds of people demanding that they be allowed to live in apartments on the already-overcrowded North Shore, and we don’t have the infrastructure for it, so I don’t understand why development isn’t taking place in an area that actually has ROOM for it!

    • Michael says:

      08:53am | 28/05/10

      Silly me, I thought I lived in a democracy… One where I could choose where and (within reason) how I want to live. If I am given the choice to pay a premium to live in an area where I can choose to have (buy) a garden, and enjoy a more gentle, less stressed lifestyle, who should a government have the right to decide to take that right off me? I you choose to live in an apartment, in a built up, high density area - close to the features of a city - then good luck to you. You get to enjoy your choice… I choose to live on the upper north shore, far enough from the city and high density housing that I can by my supposedly free choice, live with my garden, my dog and my trees and peace. Anyone who wants to take my right off me can come and try - pry it from my dead hands… or give me the right to take yours from your dead hands!

      Reply

    • Chewy says:

      09:16am | 28/05/10

      Co sign
      I moved from Chatswood to St Ives for a quieter life.
      Silly me…

    • Gavin says:

      11:48am | 28/05/10

      Brave sentiments Mike, however the fact remains that it is going to happen, like it or not. The Government don’t need your permission to build up anywhere as they see fit, and if you believe that they can’t simply come and take away your choice, think again.

      It can happen and will happen. No amount of NIMBYism will stop it. It didn’t work for Europe, New York or Asia so what makes you think NIMBYism will work here. It’s a delusion, nothing more.

      Decisions will be made and you will comply. You don’t have a choice I’m afraid. And you seem to misinterpret what democracy actually is. We simply vote every so often for the person we want to represent our seat. Our power ends when we walk out of that ballot box…until next time. We get no more say than that essentially.

    • Michael says:

      04:58pm | 28/05/10

      No Gavin, sadly, it’s the nsw “government” who have no idea about democracy. Local governments are voted for by local people to maintain local areas. nsw labor think that democracy is - do what we say and let out labor donating buddies do what they want, or we will just steam roll you and do what we want… We don’t care about what people want. nsw labor think they are above the law. Look at Catherine Hill Bay - nsw labor donor wants to develop. nsw labor steam roll everyone. Counrts say it’s not legal and a “land bribe”... nsw labor say “simple, we’ll change the law”. Boi-banking has just been introduced so that nsw labor donors can do illegal deals and build what they want where they want without any pesky democratic process. This labor government are so far beyond cr@p, they deserve to be forcably removed from office - Run Rebellion II. THAT is our democratic right in this state.

    • Population Pooper says:

      09:03am | 28/05/10

      Why so few coments on the real reason for the problem - too many people.  We must start now to lessen the burden on our cities and the rest of the world so our planet will be a place to live in, not just exist.  Fewer peope, fewer problems instead of shoulder to shoulder living in roadside filing cabinets and road rage.

      Reply

    • Russell says:

      09:41am | 28/05/10

      OK, I’ll comment. Are you lining up for the Kool-Aid, population pooper? Yes, lots less “problems” when there are fewer of us. The solution is obvious.

    • Edward James says:

      12:11pm | 28/05/10

      G day Population Pooper . The first comment from me Edward James attracted a reply from Craig Lambie which was a bit pejorative but no problem he now understand,  I am a committed activist and I am willing to put my money where my mouth is.  I do not accept Australia can handle a big increase in population; we have almost destroyed Australia in two hundred years. While the first peoples lived here in harmony with this great island continent since before the time of Christ,  as I wrote in we could just look to ourselves be our own primary and secondary producers find a balance between births and deaths. Harmony comes with balance. So much of the planet is at war even an ignorant Australian can see we are not on the right track. Cheers Edward James   BTW Tory http://www.peninsulanews.info  My ads generally on page eight contain my phone number and I cant say any politicians are my friend.

    • MoreorLess says:

      09:07am | 29/05/10

      Edward James / Population Pooper,  what I keep hearing are people complaining about people, whether these be pollies or indiviual community residents.  Sydney and any other city is just that a city it is the epitomy of over population for a small parcel of land, the pollies are the ones who have it in their power to increase the infrastructure to support growing populations alone.  I live in the Upper Hunter so I could provide my children with the freedom to play and enjoy what mother nature provided for us, but all these comments on the world being destroyed because we over populate, and how we must slow down our baby rate to save the planet is ludicrous.  Mother Nature will do what she has done for thousands of years even before we humans populated to destroy her offerings, Ice Ages or Global Warming has happened since the earth was a living planet and if you look at previous stats (which I have not provided sorry but to dig out uni info will take too long) it shows that the earth prior to humans already had a cyclic of Ice Ages.  The real complaining here is about our other human counterparts and how people think of them, there are so many more important issues to be concerned about then the threat of high rise living on a poor infrastructure, take your pick - Child Abuse, Animal Abuse, the HOMELESS, the many abandon kids etc etc the list is endless on how we humans treat others let alone how we treat mother nature who will do what she will anyway.

    • Polly Waffle says:

      09:06am | 28/05/10

      What the world needs is another Plague to rid us of the most rapacious creatures on earth or will food and water wars do it for us.  Australia could de-centralize instead and have Passports to live in cities only if you have to.  Just another ouitrageous thought.

      Reply

    • acker says:

      10:29am | 28/05/10

      A city has no capability to generate primary resources

      A city is only a recycling/manufacturing location (financial & consumables)

    • AJ says:

      09:08am | 28/05/10

      Completely agree.

      After announcing plans to encourage high density development in the inner-city areas of Brisbane, the Queensland Government has subsequently announced plans for three new “cities” far from the CBD.

      While I appreciate that there are people who want to live in a McMansion with four bedrooms, study, double-garage and big backyard, I’m pretty sure there are plenty of people who would prefer to live in a decent-sized apartment, townhouse or duplex closer to the city and friends, employment, entertainment, etc.

      That typed, our attitudes towards apartment living need to change. It would be great to see small pets permitted in apartments, longer residential leases and greater freedom for occupants to decorate the apartment, including picture hooks, re-painting, etc.

      Reply

    • Edward James says:

      02:16am | 08/06/10

      @AJ good point i recall in a time before i was interested in politics the Whitlam government promoted decentralisation. Bathurst Orange Albury Woodonga whatever it went no where in fact i also recall growers north west of tamworth wanted to at their own expence to build an airport which could accomadate 747s with which they would export their produce to the world by air No way said those interested in preserving vested interest.. It ios a shame that most people possible over eighty percent dont give a stuff about governance. they are self centered and easily conned. But cheer up[ I am not a politician and in fact I dislike them big time. Read page eight of my local paper here http://www.peninsulanews.info Edward James 0243419140

    • Ian Matthews says:

      09:14am | 28/05/10

      NIMBY!!! I’ll defend it to the death against all comers. Unless, of course, one of the comers offers me an obscene amount of money for it…

      Reply

    • Russell says:

      01:09pm | 28/05/10

      Thats the spirit Ian! Are you a policy advisor for the Leichhardt Greens?

      A lot of the whingeing about theTigers redevelopment at Rozelle (which I posted about earlier) has come from property owners who didn’t sell up earlier, hoping the price would go higher. It didn’t, and in the end, Tigers went ahead without them. Their poker game greed is usually called “community opposition” to the greed of developers…  or thats what the Greens call it. Sounds like the spirit of capitalism at its finest to me…

    • bella starkey says:

      09:34am | 28/05/10

      If you have ever been to St Ives you would know that there is a pittiful private bus service and 5 roads with a permanent traffic jam, They have built the most hideous buildings right in the centre of it and they are having trouble selling them. In fact all the medium density developments in St Ives are more than half empty.

      I can’t understand why they would build these rail corridor apartments in a place that isn’t on the train line. The pokey, pre-fab buildings aren’t worth the property prices.

      It makes sense to build up Gordon, Killara, Linfield, Roseville and Pymble. Building like this in St Ives is just spastic

      Reply

    • Chewy says:

      10:09am | 28/05/10

      I so agree it makes no sense whatsoever building up St Ives because of where its located. This is the trouble you have when planning decesions get made by people who probably never been to the area(appart from sham consultation meetings).
      Even though there is an argument for development along the train line the loss of heritage is still a crying shame.

    • frank says:

      09:59am | 28/05/10

      Tory, your article has some merit but the cities you have compared them to are mostly small cities (geographically) with great transport infrastructure. This infrastructures allows residents to move quickly into country side reaping the rewards of country living. In sydney it is not that achievable thanks to the suburban sprawl (with backgardens).
      I believe highrise on trainlines not only makes sense it is imperative to get more affordable housing to Sydneysiders. In a perfect world we would have heavily soundproof highrises running alongside all railway lines.

      Reply

    • KM says:

      10:02am | 28/05/10

      Some of my greatest memory’s were in the backyard when I was a kid with friends and family having a barbeque or running around with the dog. It disappoints me greatly to see and here this being replace by high rise. Not my idea of a health or family orientated lifestyle. Its just about government body’s getting more council rates more money for unities companies and developers making millions while the rest of us suck it down. The price of housing in this country is totally out of control and there is no way back. All governments are interested in is Stack ‘em. Pack ‘em. And rack ‘em to get more dollars well it aint for me thank you.

      Reply

    • AdamC says:

      10:03am | 28/05/10

      This fetish planners and pollies have for plonking high-density developments on already-at-capacity urban infrastructure is a dumb. Why? For one, it doesn’t increase density of population – while detached homes take up more space, they house more people. For two, people don’t want to live in them. The much-derided change to foreign ownership laws was to keep the foreigners buying high-rise flats that nobody wants.

      Most importantly, why is the fictitious increased density regarded as such a virtue? It is a myth that high-density living is more environmentally friendly. It seems to me that central-planning-obsessed town planners simply wish to create old-world cityscapes in our new world cities. I see no reason why people should give up their local communities for the sake of bureaucratic fantasies.

      PS, Tory, Vienna has about half the population of Sydney, not ‘more’.  Incidentally, Vienna’s population has actually shrunk in the last hundred years (i.e, was bigger in 1910 than in 2010) which, for someone who takes the view people vote with their feet, rather tests its most liveable title.

      Reply

    • phil says:

      10:39am | 28/05/10

      High density is only good when done well, most in Australia arent.
      Its more about the stupid prices they can get for them than making them liveable for those who will inhabit them.
      What is suggested is kinda stupid as we KNOW that the roads arent going to handle much more traffic and the trains arent dealing well with the capacity they are at now!!
      Its not going to be any more affordable and just push prices up for real “houses” in the area, like the not that old set of apartments in St Ives which for a 2br start from the 650k mark, miles from trains, near a handful of already packed buses, on main roads which are packed at peak hour & at the end of it you come home to something where you only own the paint on the walls!!

      This is one of the worst things that could happen to the North Shore!!

      Whoever was involved with the planning of Sydney & its infrastructure etc should be taken out and shot as they have balls’d it up for everyone.

      Its not going to be well thought out, its not going to be done right, its not going to be backed with any upgrade on infrastructure to handle the higher population, even if it was I wouldn’t believe it given the track record of this government!! I think im better off moving back to Auckland as its much more appealing than the way Australia is going!

      Reply

    • Aaron says:

      10:50am | 28/05/10

      So Tory what you are saying is that people should give up their backyards to the developers who will build ugly apartments so that more people can indulge the desire to live in an already crowded area ?

      Backyards offer more than personal serenity, they offer green spaces and habitats for urban wildlife, birdlife and flora. Taking what trees are left in the inner suburbs and replacing them with drab steel and glass boxes is in no way going to bring about some renaissance of Viennese ‘character’ .  Those European cities you describe are indeed high density and sure they are pretty, but they also have great transport infrastructure and many centuries of classical architecture to soften the blow.

      I suggest people look elsewhere.

      Reply

    • Randalf says:

      10:59am | 28/05/10

      This has nothing to do with urban density, this is nothing more than an attempt by Labor to insert their peasant followers into Liberal strongholds to outbreed and eventually destroy their suburbs.

      Reply

    • crunch says:

      11:02am | 28/05/10

      I read you graph in a different way, you have 2 outliers (Auckland and Vancouver), then you have 2 group of cities, 1 with a population density of around 4 million and the other with a pop density of around 2 million.

      This raises the question, why is it that beer and chocolate loving nations rate so highly?

      The mega density cities (Tokyo, NY, HK) do not rate at all, which means Sydney is in the right zone for pop density. It could go a bit higher, but it is pretty good. Maybe my own bias of disliking city living influences my interpretation though, like the author’s seeming preference for city living.

      Reply

    • gerri says:

      11:31am | 28/05/10

      It is not time to ditch the backyard.
      It is time to ditch high immigration.
      It is time Australians insist on quality of life first and foremost
      It is time our cities and suburbs stop turning into high rise concrete jungles.
      It is time our governments were weaned off milking the taxpayer dry.
      It is time.

      Reply

    • tyu says:

      11:48am | 28/05/10

      To all the people ‘rationalising’ that living in an inner-city apartment is better than having your own house and land, please keep it up - you’re doing wonders for the value of my 800sq metre fiefdom 40 minutes from the City no less.

      But, I feel sorry for you guys and your Soviet-style, grey future.

      Reply

    • Russell says:

      01:16pm | 28/05/10

      To all the people fighting to stop inner city housing developments, please keep it up. You are doing wonders for the price of my federation style bungalow in the inner city. $1.5m and still heading skyward. Thanks heaps NIMBYs, and I don’t feel sorry for anyone!

      Except my children, and theirs, who are being priced out of their birthright by selfishness

    • Who says:

      03:14pm | 28/05/10

      Russel,

      If you can’t afford a house in Australia (and you are fit and healthy) then you’re doing something wrong everybody has an equal opportunity to succeed in this country.  Maybe your children are just lazy. 

      Oh, and who said owning a house is a right?

    • Harquebus says:

      12:10pm | 28/05/10

      This is a bad idea. City living will become unsustainable and rural areas will be repopulated. For the umpteenth time, we is running out of oil mate. The average Aussie meal travels thousands of kilometers from farm to plate.
      When are we going to get some journos who are willing to tell it like it is. The proverbial has already hit the fan. In the very near future Tory, I will be reminding you of yours and your colleagues inaction on this issue. Don’t be a coward all your life.
      http://www.countercurrents.org/peakoil.htm

      Reply

    • Who says:

      03:20pm | 28/05/10

      So you’re part of the house prices will plummet by 50% crowd.  Well good luck to you, in the meantime keep paying off my rental property.

      Cheers

    • John L says:

      12:26pm | 28/05/10

      Another casualty of this mindless “big Australia” thinking.

      Reply

    • acker says:

      03:36pm | 28/05/10

      Its not “Big Australia” thinking driving these problems its “Little Australia” thinking causing these problems…we live in a big country yet about 90% of the population wants to live on top of each other in a few overpopulated cities. “Spreadout”

    • Kordez says:

      12:56pm | 28/05/10

      If living in a cement shoebox is the future of Australia housing, I’m moving to Nimbin. I’ve done my time, 4 years of communal living which lead to an inner fury that I could only express if I was willing to spend 5-25 years in a cell with Lindsay and it may have been better then paying to have the thickness of a brick between neighbours breeding a family of Rancors. Not only are you stabbed by council rates your raped by body corporate fees, inflated more then petrol to ensure the shonky strata company continues to grow wealth while ignoring any legitimate request you submit to them for a minimum of 12 months.
      HD may be the future of television, but it’s definitely not a step in the right direction for Australia’s housing.

      Reply

    • KH says:

      01:03pm | 28/05/10

      I will speak from the point of view that I would like to buy a property, but houses are simply unaffordable in the inner city.  I grew up here.  I have lived here all of my life (over 40 years now).  Damn it I don’t want to live in the outer suburbs.  Its not where my friends are. Its not where I work. I don’t want to commute.  And thanks to never finding the right person, being alone stuck out is some nightmare outer suburban ghetto would more than likely result in my suicide.  I want to live here - near the city, where there are things to do, places to go, and I can walk into the city if I want to - the streets I know as well as I know myself.  Why should I be consigned to a life in some outer suburban hell because of some greedy people who like the status quo because it suits them? 

      The cold hard reality is that cities’ densities will increase in the centre - where people want to live.  Larger houses will be available only in the middle and outer suburbs, and any that remain in the inner suburbs will just have to deal with growth - and that means medium to high density.  If you don’t like it, you better sell up now and find your block of land somewhere else, because this is going to happen, and as the younger generation gets older and demands to live inner city, the pressure will finally force the governments hand.  There is no stopping it, so you can moan until the cows come home, it will do no good.  And I am not talking about Sydney - Melbourne has the same problems.

      Reply

    • Who says:

      03:26pm | 28/05/10

      What a shameless piece of self obsessed dribble, I am genuinely surprised you have any friends with such a negative attitude.  Here’s an idea; work have and sacrifice for the things that you want because the world doesn’t owe you anything.  The vast majority of millionaires (over 80% when I last read) are the first generation in their families to have wealth.  If they can do it why can’t you.

    • James says:

      01:24pm | 28/05/10

      There is a good reason for why Vienna, Zurich and Munich have a better standard of living despite a higher population density and that is that they were planned before the wide spread use of the car i.e. they were carefully planned so there were enough services for each part of the city and the population density was spread evenly with allowances for public space.  Also there are virtually no sky scrapers in these cities but instead typical 5 story European buildings.

      The problem with greater density in Sydney and Melbourne is that we have set our mistakes (city planning) in concrete.  Higher density will me higher road volumes as many areas are completely car dependant and cut off from services.

      A well functioning city needs careful planning at every stage with an eye to overall functionality of the city now and in the future.  This sort of foresight is particularly absent in Melbourne and Sydney and has been for many decades.

      Without careful, intelligent planning and real money spent, big Australia will be a big mess.

      Reply

    • Jane says:

      01:28pm | 28/05/10

      Brilliant article Tory!

      Reply

    • Ccarl Palmer says:

      01:33pm | 28/05/10

      Having visited more than half of the above cities, (I should have visited Vienna but the volcanic ash killed that plan) Sydney (ok you can add Brissie and Melb) still beats them hands down.  Worst of the above was Geneva, it is a dump, dirty and the place looks like it is falling down around their ears. It was a big disappointment.

      If these are the shining examples of “quality of living” then I’m not sure they are the type of models we should follow. I’m sure we can do much better than some of the cities I’ve visited in the above list.
      As for creating a community environment, I liked the various Town Squares and Piazza’s that I visited, you could see and feel the communal effect that it had on the people.
      As far as infrastructure is concerned, please bring back all of those wise people who were involved in building the Sydney Harbour Bridge. I’m sure they would have approached the M5, M4, etc differently. Drive around Europe and you quickly see that they have a far more sophisticated road system than what we have. Ohh , the great Aussie dream of a Fast Train still hasn’t made it to those extra-ordinary brains that make transport decisions.

      Opportunities abound for this young country - we need vision and boldness.  It’s not a question of keeping up it is a question of getting and doing it right. As someone said to me Europe may be a great place to visit but it ain’t the best place to live. Australia on the other hand may not be the best place to visit but it certainly is a great place to live.

      Reply

    • DaveS says:

      10:52am | 01/06/10

      I must agree. Modern Australian planning bodies appear by their results to be populated by sad, dreary, mediocre, mean-spirited, penny-pinching half-wits, who consider money to be the pinnacle of existence, and the indoor life the only option. Gone are the days of bold vision and a LOVE of this country, its sunshine and its environs.

      Paris is a lovely city by virtue of the height restrictions (and exterior design) of its buildings - they let the light in. Give high-density living options to an Australian developer and it’s plain grey skyscrapers that kill all the light (look at Rhodes in Sydney for example).

      Kuringgai was a lovely, leafy area with beautiful houses on quarter-acre blocks of the best land in the world, where residents could appreciate the benefits of Sydney’s stunning climate, clean air, trees, and the joys of not just backyard cricket or a dip in the pool, but homegrown herbs, fruit and veges. Relentless and merciless assaults on that lifestyle (which frankly is so far ahead of anywhere else in the world - how can you compare high density living to that???) by developers have reduced it to more grey mediocrity, which like a cancer is spreading further and further afield. Trying to convince the population to give that up in exchange for living in a concrete box is an act of pure evil.

      Both the Pacific Highway and the North Shore rail line are woefully inadequate for all the extra folks being introduced to the area, but that doesn’t seem to matter to the politicians or developers. If they were genuine in their desire to provide new accommodation for the soaring population of Sydney, then inner-city suburbs like Chippendale and Redfern would have gone high-rise long ago. Instead, they remain low-grade, low to medium density semi-industrial/small business (who could remain even with high density accommodation around and above them).

      There are also amazingly under-appreciated areas in Gosford, Newcastle (half empty with great infrastructure after BHP’s withdrawal), Camperdown, Parramatta and Ashfield, with existing infrastructure and bags of room that would have made more sense than what’s happening on the North Shore, so a political rather than practical agenda is not so hard to be a suspect here.

      BTW I live in the Hills area of the north-west, also with leafy quarter-acre blocks, but with no transport infrastructure except for the hopelessly inadequate M2. I’m expecting high-rise blocks any time now…

    • EJ says:

      01:42pm | 28/05/10

      Tory, you seem to have forgotten that those cities with high density living all have long cold winters accompanied by snow. In Australia we are an outdoor culture, so why do the do-gooders want to destroy our unique & happy culture & have us all living on top of each other? I know that the pollies want this because they don’t want to have to use our tax dollars to open up more suburban home plots….mainly because they’d rather spend our money advertising how great their inept governments are; but for God sake the huge apartment blocks in London have been nothing but a breeding ground for lawlessness & violence…..& even here in Melbourne the huge apartmeny blcks for high density housing have a problem with law breakers. Sto trying to fix something that ain’t broken!!

      Reply

    • marley says:

      02:25pm | 28/05/10

      What’s winter and snow got to do with anything?  Haven’t you ever heard of winter sports - ice skating on the canals, x-country skiing on the bike paths, playing hockey at the local outdoor rink?  I’d put my money on some of those “cold” cities having at least as much an outdoor lifestyle in reality as Australian cities like to think they have.

    • nosthow says:

      01:50pm | 28/05/10

      Good thought provoking article Tory. What Australia needs is housing that people can actually afford not more “palaces” that are out of the reach of so many. Backyards may be something we have to partly sacrifice in order to better house our growing population keeping in mind the pressing need to be environmentaly friendly in how we construct the new housing. Having a home whether rented or purchased close to work and schools and shops should be a priority when planners come to design our new housing needs.

      Reply

    • Who says:

      03:35pm | 28/05/10

      Every fit and healthy person in Australia can already afford a house.  Those that say they can’t are either lazy, bad with money or not willing to sacrifice short term gratification.  Which are you?

      Of course there are going to be houses and suburbs that are out of reach to the majority but then why should exceptionally hard working, clever people be punished because you can’t buy in Peppermint Grove.

    • nosthow says:

      07:08pm | 28/05/10

      @Who - sadly Who your statement is unbelievably false - I own my own house but many many people have to rent and live in cities near where they work without any possible chance of ever owning a house. in fact in the media this week Australian house prices are reported to very much overpriced. So i am afraid I must totally disagree with your statement Who

    • John A Neve says:

      01:51pm | 28/05/10

      Tory,
      Having now read your article a number of times, I must admit to not knowing where you are coming from!!
      We live on one of the largest land masses in the world, we have one of the smallest populations, there is a huge tract of land untouched by human hands, so what is the problem?
      The problem is claimed to be lack of water, but does this claim stand up?
      The land is barren, but does this claim stand up?
      We could build towns in the middle of nowhere, pipe water in, use the recycled effluent of the town’s population to propergate the surrounding land.
      Yes, it would cost, but it would create jobs and alleviate the population crush.

      Just what is wrong with this country, that we cannot think beyond the end of our noses?

      Reply

    • James says:

      02:30pm | 28/05/10

      If it so simple then, why haven’t cities been better planned up to this point?  Are we going to take the focus off the big 5 (where the majority of Australians live) let them decay while we build massively expensive cities that are a long way from clean water and everything else for that matter?  People quibble about a 43 billion broadband network, have you got any idea what building (and sustaining) a city in the Middle of nowhere would cost? 

      It will create jobs but it will take the focus off the real problem and that is getting the big 5 on a sustainable footing.

    • John A Neve says:

      03:00pm | 28/05/10

      James,
      We will never get the “big 5” on a sustainable footing. The population is choking them to death.
      We need to look at alternatives.
      Just think, the larger the “big 5” get, the further we will have to truck their food.

    • James says:

      04:01pm | 28/05/10

      They are choking to death becasue there is no cohesive plan for them as a whole.  There is no direction, no leadership, no one owns the problem and no money is beings spent. 

      There Is No Alternative (TINA) to the big 5, either we fix them or Australia will struggle to function.

    • TracyS says:

      12:28pm | 31/05/10

      The problem is that the knowledge/science isn’t there.

      There is a lobby group (I’ve heard Dick Smith speak on radio about this) that is currently calling for an evidence based approach to population - and part of that will be getting the evidence. It would be nice to have good objective information to inform decisions about population, development and population density.

    • Barry says:

      02:12pm | 28/05/10

      Great idea !!!

      let put lids in front of computer and televisions.

      Reply

    • Greypower says:

      02:32pm | 28/05/10

      Well, if I can’t have a backyard veggie patch I hope they include community gardens - as well as the pleasure of growing your own veggies and flowers there’s the social aspect which would be so important for high rise occupants.

      Reply

    • Jane says:

      04:52pm | 28/05/10

      Give up my veggie patch and fruit trees?

      My home made marmalade and tomato relish, pickles etc.

      Nope, not happening.

    • Arios says:

      04:27pm | 28/05/10

      Aussies definitely aren’t used to high density living.

      Once in Canberra, a lazy lady was standing right across the escalator, blocking all paths past her, while we were ascending. I gently waited on her rear/right for her to politely shift to the left so that I could get past, but instead she turned around and snapped “Hey this isn’t Sydney!!!” to me. I almost fell over with laughter.

      That’s an example of Aussies being so greedy/ignorant of other people that they can’t even keep to the left to let busy people in their lunch breaks shuffle past. In contrast, Tokyo is the opposite, the entire population by default automatically stands over to the left and this high-speed stream of busy people can fly past up on the right hand side. It works really well, but I do get a little anxious here constantly worried about if a bicycle is going to smack into me at any moment etc. The place is hectic smile

      That said, Tokyo’s quality of living is nowhere near that of Australia. Natural beauty, spaciousness, laid back freedom, “have a barbee maaate” etc. I love that side of Australian life, you definitely can’t beat it. I would much prefer to raise my kids in Australia, but that said, the Japanese definitely do seem to co-exist very well together considering the tiny spaces they have. They are a lot more patient and cohesive than Aussies.

      I like the idea of Australia beefing up the density of some of the other regional centres, rather than just piling it all into Sydney. Sydney has more than enough problems already.

      Reply

    • Tina says:

      11:42pm | 28/05/10

      Just be careful when you are in continental Europe as the ‘slow’ ones are standing on the right and the speedy ones run past on left.  (I personally have always been standing in the way during my time in AUS because I did it the ‘right’ way)

    • Edward James says:

      03:15am | 29/05/10

      Arios once upon a time we here in Sydney had yellow centre lines marked on our footpaths, people did understand about keeping left. And we had real trams where the fit and quick could rush out jump on the step and ride untill the ticket collector turned up then the pennyless traveler could drop off without paying. It even had a name claaed scaling like scales off a fish.  Times have changed oportunist developers are in bed with politicians and for the most part unhappy taxpayers have been convinced there is nothing they can do. We are often seeing where the people win a legal argument in the Land and Inviornment Court only to watch the government legislate its way around the decision. I have for years been telling activist it is a waste of time taking what is a political arguement into a law court. Only last year the NSW constitution was regulated to assist Parramatta council take land and give it to Grocon The State government did not like the five zip ruling in favour of small property owners made by the High Court of Australia. There is a big conflict between the avaris of the individual and the greater need of community.  More people need to involve themselves in open public debate on these strings and in their local councils.

    • Andy says:

      04:36pm | 28/05/10

      Oh yeah- lets dig up our back yards and sub-let it to a chinese family of 24!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I don’t think so

      Reply

    • James says:

      05:05pm | 28/05/10

      Personally I don’t mind high density living as long as the build quality is good. I lived in an apartment in Newtown close to the railway, it was great, noise wasn’t an issue - I hardly noticed it. I’ve moved to Manly, no railway but I can hear everything that my neighbours are doing, putting away dishes, knives and forks, normal talking, television - just a clear lack of noise insulation. I’m lucky to be able to sleep before midnight (shift workers/ hospitality). Apartment dwellers also need to be educated though that we’re living in a communal environment, show courtesy and respect to other people and their living environment. This should probably start with strata and real estate agents as well as of course the owner/ tenant.

      Reply

    • Bill says:

      09:47pm | 28/05/10

      Who cares what happens in Sydney, most of Australia is west of Sydney anyway. If the people of Sydney want to live that way and are prepared to do the work to pay for it and the supporting infrastructure themselves, not get everyone else in the country to foot the bills, then I say go for it.
      On the other hand if you want to live and work in Australia you might have to leave the rusting old colonial anachronism of Sydney behind and go to where the country’s wealth creation really is. Lets get some good living conditions in the Kimberley and Pilbara and other regioanl areas before wasting any more effort in the colonial past and lets keep the stupid Sydney centric media stuff in the local Sydney rags.

      Reply

    • Oz says:

      09:49pm | 28/05/10

      Does Tory Maguire ever wonder why Sydney’s liveability is world class?  Has she considered the possibility that Sydney’s backyards are a significant factor as to why it’s is in top ten?  It seems obvious to me.

      Reply

    • LFG says:

      09:21am | 29/05/10

      Cut the population, don’t increase the density. We don’t have to live like zoo animals just be cause other parts of the world do.

      Reply

    • John says:

      10:02am | 29/05/10

      You cannot compare a small Sydney apartment to a late 19th century Viennese apartment, where a single room may be bigger than entire modern apartment. I lived there and I can tell you the quality of living is not just based on density of population. It is an excellent transport system, it is cultural heritage of Austrian empire: museums, music, parks, gardens, even the very layout of the city, which facilitates socialising. Unlike Sydney Vienna is not growing quite the opposite in fact. That is something you cannot take out of the equation - nobody is destroying Viennese historical townhouses, where only few families live and replaces them with the hideous modern apartments housing hundreds of people. Vienna had 2 million people in 1910, today it only has 1.6 million people. Vienna is about 420 km2 in size while Sydney is 1580 km2. And now for something we can relate to: an apartment in Vienna in a quality building will set you back cool 1 to 4 million EUROS, that is up to 5.8 million Australian dollars

      Reply

    • Harry says:

      12:49pm | 29/05/10

      Perhaps a little more research might have helped.
      Population of Vienna in 1900: 2m.
      In 2010: 1.7m.

      My guess is that it is easier to “plan” for growth when there hasn’t been any.

      And using population density figures can be quite misleading, since it is very likely that the densities vary quite a great deal across Sydney given that it is around 5 times larger than Vienna and has experienced growth from .5m in 1900 to 4.5m in 2010.

      Reply

    • The Senator says:

      01:01pm | 29/05/10

      Come to Mount Barker in the Adelaide hills, no one cares what happens here, we are carving up good farming land to concrete it over at a rate of knots and everyone just loves it, we don’t need infracstucture, back yards, the kids can now play on the roof tops, they are so close none fall between the houses, exponential growth is the best thing for the world.

      Reply

    • Timmo says:

      06:10am | 01/06/10

      Mr Senator, You want to see what they have done in Redland bay Qld. Beautiful Red soil covered with Boxes. It’s a cryin shame. They should have Redland Shire Council investigated by the Fraud Squad. The have been defrauding the people on Russell Island for many years and the Qld Gov. is tied up in it as well. A royal commission would be good here. Hidden Agendas everywhere here, but unfortunately no democracy in good old Qld under Captain Bligh.

    • jesse says:

      07:07pm | 29/05/10

      Mt. Barker… you are so right…  Hundreds of houses, all the same Federation Style - wasn’t that over 100 years ago - colorbond fencing,
      houses all in a straight line, exactly the same distance from the road,
      no wildlife corridors, just another big surburb….  Castlemaine has Munro Court…. this is my idea of what living in what was once a rural setting should look like.  Where is the food to come from when houses are taking all the land… Paul Holloway, allegedly the planning minister for SA..voted in again.

      Reply

    • Smith says:

      07:34pm | 29/05/10

      comparing Vienna to Sydney is laughable. Vienna went from 2million people in 1910 to 1.6 million now. Yes, it “shrunk”. It has an excellent transport system and its apartments are huge 19th century town houses, where a single room is bigger than entire modern units of Sydney, with a price to match at around 1 to 4 million EUROS. It is metropolitan edge to edge on 420km2, while Sydney is a 1500km2+ giant of village style suburbs with a CBD. Neither of them can be turned into the other.

      Reply

    • Dan says:

      10:32pm | 29/05/10

      Whos bringing the water

      Reply

    • Karl says:

      07:30pm | 30/05/10

      Too many people.  Threin lies your problem.  It’s already been proved with rats that at certain densities, they will co-exist quite happily.  Keep feeding more and more into the available space and watch the trouble start.
      Don’t know why I’m getting so worked up though, I’m not giving up my 5 acre patch no matter how many hacks try and convince me that my lifestyle is unsustainable.

      Reply

    • Green Belts are Nice says:

      12:00am | 31/05/10

      Though I’m fundamentally opposed to journos using the expression “have their cake and eat it”, the point made in the article is valid.  Interestingly, the population densities in most established suburbs in our capital cities are lower now than they were 50 years ago (the ABS has a good article about this on their website), because so many houses now only have a couple of people where they used to have medium-sized families.  The European method of lumping people together in areas of medium-density apartment housing works well because those areas are separated by parks, forests, sporting grounds and other open spaces.  You might live in a two bedroom apartment on the fourth floor in an area full of six storey apartment buildings, but you’re only a 5 minute walk from some good greenery and a 15 minute tram ride from farms and forest.  Probably a bit too late to attempt that in much of Sydney, but I’d support that sort of development in any of our larger cities.

      Reply

    • Timmo says:

      06:22am | 31/05/10

      Getting rid of the backyard. Where are all the bluetongue lizards going to live?.

      Reply

    • rene says:

      05:17pm | 31/05/10

      Pushing more density onto the North Shore areas is shortsighted until the Pacific Highway is improved. Currently, on average between 4.30 - 7, ie peaktime it can take up to an hour to get from say Chatswood to the F3.  And this can also happen on the weekends as well, and be worse. Took us over an hour the other week to get from the Monavale intersection to the F3 and this on a Saturday at about 2pm!  This is only a distance of about 10kms, and North Sydney to F3 is only around 22kms.  This is ridiculous and adding more population density only makes it worse.  This will only get worse and when I asked a friend who works for the RTA, they said the RTA has no reals ideas about what they are going to do about it.  In addition, And the trains are ridiculously overcrowded on the North Shore line as well.  I do not live on the North Shore but have been a commuter at various stages through this area and since then, I have seen that it has only gotten worse.  A highway/freeway frmo say Hornsby through the back of the Kuringai parks linking up to the Gore Hill Freeway would be one way to go.

      Reply

    • John in Alice says:

      07:15pm | 31/05/10

      I’ll never understand how some folks enjoy living close enough to others so as to be witness to their sex lives or body functions, but if they are happy with it, more power to them.  Personally I prefer the elbow room of a few acres around me and told my real estate agent that I didn’t want to see or hear the neighbors. With a continuing program to reward breeding along with a growing shortage of land, houses and resources the time approaches when there will simply be no choice in the matter and it will be the fault of irresponsible unimaginative leadership that will bring this about.  I look forward to leaving Australia within the next year for just these reasons and pity those remaining here who will shortly have no choices of living conditions in the not so distant future, but then they allowed it all to happen.

      Reply

    • Corsair says:

      02:43am | 01/06/10

      Population density has a major environmental impact. It’s just common sense that the more spread out we are the more chance we have of living in balance with our environment ...rather than creating concrete jungles with no landscape whatsoever.

      The key here is to put in the appropriate infrastructure that will encourage people not to congregate in one area. This is what the role of government is. To put in place infrastructure to encourage people to live in different areas to ensure we do not overpopulate, and overtax resources, in one particular area.

      Unfortunately, this is not happening. It’s a bit of a catch 22. People won’t move there unless there are appropriate services and infrastructure ...but the services aren’t set up unless there are people and infrastructure. The common link here is infrastructure. If the government did this it would ensure people and services start spreading out. This would allow us to live in a much more balanced way with our environment.

      It’s called sustainability. It’s what we should be aiming for if we actually want to preserve life.

      Reply

    • Timmo says:

      06:20am | 01/06/10

      The councils love high rise as they can get more rates on the one block of land. Good for them isn’t it. I don’t think it’s very healthy living in a bird cage which basically what a high rise is. Surrounded by a steel cage in units that are the same as each other. Not good for kids who need to run around instead of being stuck in a concrete slab of a building. Have a look at the mess they have created on the Gold Coast. That’s a good place to see how they have pulled everything that was good out and replaced with nothing. That’s why they call surfers paradise gotham city.

      Reply

    • Terry says:

      10:46am | 01/06/10

      What do so many immigrants know of farming or shearing. In the fifties and sixties European immigrants worked farms and did a great variety of things. Today they are just cramming our cities which are already bursting at the seems.
      There seems to be little courage or forward planning.

      Reply

    • Mark says:

      03:37pm | 01/06/10

      it is time for change, our social system works on capitalism which forces every individual to have more and more just to keep up, so we can get more and more we import people so they become part of the system, the side effect is higher population density and a lower quality of life for those that had to make room for them. The solution is somehow stop acheiving growth of the economy and somehow direct growth to the individual, this lets the individual improve their own lot and companies can profit without needing to import more and more customers under the guise of immigration.
      Oh, backyard, keep it and make everyone maintain one, it will force us to find a new and better way of life to keep them

      Reply

    • Ronk says:

      04:42pm | 02/06/10

      “With the exception of Auckland, Sydney has a much lower density than the cities that beat it for quality of living.”

      You didn’t mention the very significant fact that all of these cities are snowed-in every winter, where living in a high-rise, centrally-heated flat is a definite advantage. especially for older or less able people who are totally isolated in a stand-alone house and occasionally freeze to death because they are unable to shovel all the snow from their front doors.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 24 May 12 09:17PM

@loupascale if the survey made you sad, probably skip the comments...

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

@paulwiggins @richardkendall that fountain pens yarn is a great social trend story

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

I like how a tip erodes so only you can use it MT “@paulwiggins: BBC News - Why are fountain pen sales rising? http://t.co/0hk2MRtf”

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 24 May 12 07:23PM

@apiotrowski I feel your pain #workingtheweekend

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

by Tony Burke

38

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

When you take on a job like being Environment Minister there’s some hits you can see coming. …

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

by Tory Shepherd

92

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit column. It’s a regular column that looks at skulduggery…

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

by Anthony Sharwood

71

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

We are taught early in life that we should not question authority. We must listen to our parents, our…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed