# Australian Cities Must Transform for Growth



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Australian cities must transform for population growth *










SYDNEY, March 15 (Reuters) - Australia circa 2050, population 35 million, climate change induced rising sea levels have flooded the Gold Coast resort region, apartment blocks are now used to grow food and people commute in monorail pods above the sea.

In another city, Australians live on floating island pods with apartments both below and above sea level, the population has shifted from land to the sea because of the sky-rocketing value of disappearing arable land.

Climate change has also forced many Australians to move inland and create new cities in the outback, relying on solar power to exist in the inhospitable interior.

These are just a few urban scenarios by some of Australia's leading architects shortlisted for "Ideas for Australian Cities 2050+" to be staged at this year's Venice Architecture Biennale.

While these images may sound like science fiction, many architects and demographers say Australian cities must radically transform to cope with the pressures of population growth and climate change or face social unrest and urban decay.

"If we don't get this right ... all hell breaks loose, or our cities break down, there's not enough water, there's not enough power," said one of Australia's leading demographers Bernard Salt.

Australia survived the global financial crisis, due largely to China buying its resources, and while resource exports will continue to bolster its economy for decades, future prosperity may be threatened by a growing, ageing population, according to an Australian government report released in February.

The report said Australia's population was set to rise by 60 percent to 35 million by 2050, mainly through migration, yet cities are already groaning under the present population.

"One of the major frontier issues for Australia over the next decade will be the future of our cities," said Heather Ridout, chief executive of the Australian Industry Group, which is calling for major infrastructure investment in cities.

Among the beneficiaries of such development would be property firms like Lend Lease, Stockland and Mirvac Group, building material groups Boral Ltd and CSR, Australia's top engineering contractor Leighton Holding Ltd, and the country's biggest private hospital operator, Ramsay Health.

But demographers warn that Australian cities need to not only expand infrastructure, but ensure future residents have equal access to city facilities.

Racial riots at Sydney's Cronulla beach in 2005 and a series of attacks against Indian students in the past year are signs of growing social tensions in Australian cities, say demographers.

"If we have a rising population, we need to make sure that we have appropriate infrastructure, so that we don't lose the social cohesion that we take for granted," said Larissa Brown from the Centre for Sustainable Leadership. "We need affordable access to housing, to transport, to healthcare."

While Australia is double the size of Europe, three-quarters of the country is sparsely populated countryside or harsh outback, leaving the bulk of the population to inhabit a thin strip down the southeast coast. In fact, around 50 percent of the population live in the three largest cities -- Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane -- on a combined land area that is about the size of Brunei or Trinidad & Tobago.

TRANSPORT KEY TO FUTURE CITIES

Australia's post-World War Two sprawling suburbia is under strain due to inadequate transport and public facilities.

"We're at risk of seeing increasingly dysfunctional cities ... we're starting to see sort of fragmentation and breakdown of the transport systems and increasing frustration for the residents of those cities trying to get around," said Jago Dodson, urban researcher at Griffth University.

A State of Cities 2010 report released in March said Australia's major cities contribute neary 80 percent of GDP, but warned that worsening urban congestion would have a serious negative impact on economic growth if not addressed.

The Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics estimates the cost of road congestion for the Australian cities was about A$9.4 billion for 2005. Left unchecked, this is projected to rise to A$20 billion by 2020.

"Urban congestion contributes to traffic delays, increased greenhouse gas emissions, higher vehicle running costs and more accidents," said Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese.

"It is a tragedy that many parents spend more time travelling to and from work, than at home with their kids. Relieve urban congestion and we improve our quality of life as well as our productivity," said Albanese.

In February, a 10-year, A$50 billion transport blueprint was announced for Sydney which will see a new heavy rail network, 1,000 new buses and possibly a fast train linking Sydney with the port city of Newcastle, to its north.

Sydney, Australia's biggest city, is daily gridlocked, forcing a motorist who travels 22 km (14 miles) a day to spend three days stuck in traffic each year.

Private transport currently accounts for about 90 percent of urban journeys in Australia and Transurban Group, which operates the nation's major tollways, believes car usage will continue to rise, despite a move to public transport.

"Despite concern about climate change, road use in our cities is predicted to grow significantly in the next 20 to 30 years," said Transurban in a 2009 sustainability report.

"New road projects will increasingly be part of integrated transport solutions for entire cities or transport corridors."

But the company warned future road projects will cost more to build and develop due to climate change, with Australia's government seeking to introduce a carbon emissions trading scheme and pre-approval analysis of climate impacts of new projects.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's government plans to invest A$36 billion in transport infrastructure in the next 5 years.

Improving efficiency in energy and transport infrastructure could increase GDP by nearly 2 percent, or the equivalent of A$75 billion, says Australia's Productivity Commission.

SHAPE OF CITIES TO CHANGE

Australia has one of the world's highest home ownership rates, but the generational dream of a suburban home and garden looks set to be shattered.

Over the next few decades, more Australians will be living in high-density housing, what some demographers call the 'Manhattanization' of cities.

A new Sydney urban plan released in February calls for 700,000 new dwellings by 2036, with 70 percent of development to occur within existing suburbs and only 30 percent in new suburbs.

If Sydney does not consolidate, the city would need to expand 1.5 times in size to accommodate its growing population and would run out of available land within 30 years, said the New South Wales (NSW) state government plan.

Demographer Salt questions whether Australians will give up the "Neighbours" dream, citing the worldwide TV hit about life in a suburban Australian street. "Neighbours...is absolutely integral to the Australian psyche," said Salt, a partner at KPMG.

Whether Sydney adopts a Manhattan or low-rise European urban plan, a rising population will put more pressure on housing stock. Australia already has one of the most expensive house prices in the world and housing affordability is falling.

The Commonwealth Bank's CommSec forecasts housing prices, which rose 12 percent in 2009, will rise by 8-10 percent in 2010 due to a rising population and a lack of stock.

"For investors, rising rents and home prices is an attractive combination," said CommSec's chief economist James Craig.

Leightons forecasts annual growth in residential construction of six percent through to 2014. Mirvac, one of the country's top apartment construction firms, also forecasts growth, citing A$759 million worth of exchanged contracts, focusing on large-scale projects which are transforming old industrial sites in Sydney.

SUSTAINABLE FUTURE CITIES

Australia has an inhospitable interior forcing more than a quarter of its 20 million people to live in the southeast corner, where the two biggest cities and jobs are located.

The projected population increase will impact heavily on Australia's fragile environment and require urban planning to ensure future cities are environmentally sustainable.

Australians have the biggest houses in the worlds, nicknamed McMansions, and demographers say homes may need to be retro-fitted with water tanks and solar panels to make cities more sustainable and reduce their environmental footprint.

Between 1998 and 2004 Sydney's environmental footprint grew from 6.67 to 7.21 hectares per person, but some Australians warn there is a limit to the country's population carrying capacity.

"A bigger Australia doesn't mean deeper soils, it doesn't mean larger river flows, it doesn't mean more rainfall. We're only bigger in one sense -- the increase in the total number of humans crammed into the narrow coastal strip," said Bob Carr, former New South Wales state premier.

Sydney this month began pumping desalinated ocean water to supplement its drinking water supplies which are frequently threatened by drought. The plant will generate 250 million litres of water a day or around 15 percent of Sydney's water supply.

Almost every major Australian city has a desalination plant pumping or under construction.

"Water's going to be critical to the future of Australia, perhaps more than anything else," said Mike Young from the Environment Institute at Adelaide University.

Australia has one of the world's highest greenhouse gas emissions rates per capita, with about 80 percent of electricity generated by coal-fired power stations.

Australia's expanding population means it will need to produce 50 percent more power over the next 20 years, say energy experts, adding a scarcity of water may stifle urban growth by threatening future power supplies as Australia's coal-fired power generators are driven by steam and cooled by water.

Climate change will necessitate a change in Australia's urban design, said the "Transforming Australian Cities" report in 2009.

In January 2009, just prior to Australia's most deadly bushfires which killed 173 people, a heatwave in Melbourne resulted in blackouts as power supplies failed and bushfires threatened to cut power to the entire city.

Melbourne's rail system, designed for cooler conditions, overheated and failed, and water consumption trebled with the city's water storage at only 33 percent capacity.

"On a daily basis we are witnessing the failure and short comings of these traditional systems," said the report.

"Existing urban settlements and infrastructure are increasingly vulnerable and will need to be protected against these events. Compact cities with high densities are emerging as the most robust in the challenges posed by climate change. They are capable of operating on lower consumption." 

SHAPE OF CITIES TO CHANGE

Australia has one of the world's highest home ownership rates, but the generational dream of a suburban home and garden looks set to be shattered.

Over the next few decades, more Australians will be living in high-density housing, what some demographers call the 'Manhattanization' of cities.

A new Sydney urban plan released in February calls for 700,000 new dwellings by 2036, with 70 percent of development to occur within existing suburbs and only 30 percent in new suburbs.

If Sydney does not consolidate, the city would need to expand 1.5 times in size to accommodate its growing population and would run out of available land within 30 years, said the New South Wales (NSW) state government plan.

Demographer Salt questions whether Australians will give up the "Neighbours" dream, citing the worldwide TV hit about life in a suburban Australian street. "Neighbours...is absolutely integral to the Australian psyche," said Salt, a partner at KPMG.

Whether Sydney adopts a Manhattan or low-rise European urban plan, a rising population will put more pressure on housing stock. Australia already has one of the most expensive house prices in the world and housing affordability is falling.

The Commonwealth Bank's CommSec forecasts housing prices, which rose 12 percent in 2009, will rise by 8-10 percent in 2010 due to a rising population and a lack of stock.

"For investors, rising rents and home prices is an attractive combination," said CommSec's chief economist James Craig.

Leightons forecasts annual growth in residential construction of six percent through to 2014. Mirvac, one of the country's top apartment construction firms, also forecasts growth, citing A$759 million worth of exchanged contracts, focusing on large-scale projects which are transforming old industrial sites in Sydney.

SUSTAINABLE FUTURE CITIES

Australia has an inhospitable interior forcing more than a quarter of its 20 million people to live in the southeast corner, where the two biggest cities and jobs are located.

The projected population increase will impact heavily on Australia's fragile environment and require urban planning to ensure future cities are environmentally sustainable.

Australians have the biggest houses in the worlds, nicknamed McMansions, and demographers say homes may need to be retro-fitted with water tanks and solar panels to make cities more sustainable and reduce their environmental footprint.

Between 1998 and 2004 Sydney's environmental footprint grew from 6.67 to 7.21 hectares per person, but some Australians warn there is a limit to the country's population carrying capacity.

"A bigger Australia doesn't mean deeper soils, it doesn't mean larger river flows, it doesn't mean more rainfall. We're only bigger in one sense -- the increase in the total number of humans crammed into the narrow coastal strip," said Bob Carr, former New South Wales state premier.

Sydney this month began pumping desalinated ocean water to supplement its drinking water supplies which are frequently threatened by drought. The plant will generate 250 million litres of water a day or around 15 percent of Sydney's water supply.

Almost every major Australian city has a desalination plant pumping or under construction.

"Water's going to be critical to the future of Australia, perhaps more than anything else," said Mike Young from the Environment Institute at Adelaide University.

Australia has one of the world's highest greenhouse gas emissions rates per capita, with about 80 percent of electricity generated by coal-fired power stations.

Australia's expanding population means it will need to produce 50 percent more power over the next 20 years, say energy experts, adding a scarcity of water may stifle urban growth by threatening future power supplies as Australia's coal-fired power generators are driven by steam and cooled by water.

Climate change will necessitate a change in Australia's urban design, said the "Transforming Australian Cities" report in 2009.

In January 2009, just prior to Australia's most deadly bushfires which killed 173 people, a heatwave in Melbourne resulted in blackouts as power supplies failed and bushfires threatened to cut power to the entire city.

Melbourne's rail system, designed for cooler conditions, overheated and failed, and water consumption trebled with the city's water storage at only 33 percent capacity.

"On a daily basis we are witnessing the failure and short comings of these traditional systems," said the report.

"Existing urban settlements and infrastructure are increasingly vulnerable and will need to be protected against these events. Compact cities with high densities are emerging as the most robust in the challenges posed by climate change. They are capable of operating on lower consumption."


----------



## spiralout (Jul 16, 2008)

some of the report seems very dooms day. 

We're definately experiencing pretty huge population growth for our standards though. The positive is that our ecconomy is growing with the Asian countries so that should help with infastructure etc. Its a big challange though to have such growth without comprimising livability etc


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

hkskyline said:


> *
> While Australia is double the size of Europe"*


*

??? Double the size of Europe? Where did this reporter go to school.

Australia: 7,617,930 km2
Europe: 10,180,000 km2*


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

Interesting article. Now to sit back and have them fix it all up, I guess. Brisbane is already undergoing massive changes for the future, with the Clem7 and Airport Link tunnels starting or are already completed.



> *South East Queensland*
> _Overview_
> South East Queensland (SEQ) is Australia's fastest growing metropolitan region. From 2006 to 2031, its population is expected to grow from 2.8 million to 4.4 million people. The region covers 22,890 square kilometres, stretching 240 kilometres from Noosa in the north to the Queensland-New South Wales border in the south, and 160 kilometres west to Toowoomba.
> 
> ...


List and outline of Infrastructure for South East Queensland



> The South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and Program (2008-2026) (SEQIPP) is a $A107 billion plan for infrastructure investment in South East Queensland, Australia over the next 18 years.
> SEQIPP is a key component of the regional planning process in SEQ and outlines the Queensland Government’s infrastructure priorities to support the South East Queensland Regional Plan.
> With more than 300 projects in the plan, SEQIPP details more than
> 
> ...


----------



## Hyperspace (Mar 13, 2010)

They keep making a big deal over Australia's exploding population, but 35 million is still a miniscule population. I know Australia is landlocked, but it still seems like a lot of fuss over nothing. I mean Canada will have 42 million by then, yet all the population news out of Canada is about the rapidly aging population. Maybe I'm missing something?


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

Australia is growing faster than Canada. We're the fastest growing OECD country (currently growing at nearly 500,000/year). If we continue such growth (500,000/year - though it's likely to increase as the population increases, duh) our population will be over 37 million by 2050. By 2050 if we maintain a 2.1% pop. growth, we would be growing at nearly 800,000/year. Now, on top of all that, add into the equation Australia's love for big houses, big backyards, lack of water and lack of arable land etc. It has the potential to be a problem if something isn't done soon.


----------



## hangman (Oct 21, 2009)

We have the ageing population problem too, which is why our pm wants that population growth to keep us going. 

And lol, australia is the opposite of landlocked


----------



## Looking/Up (Feb 28, 2008)

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> Australia is growing faster than Canada. We're the fastest growing OECD country (currently growing at nearly 500,000/year). If we continue such growth (500,000/year - though it's likely to increase as the population increases, duh) our population will be over 37 million by 2050. *By 2050 if we maintain a 2.1% pop. growth, we would be growing at nearly 800,000/year.* Now, on top of all that, add into the equation Australia's love for big houses, big backyards, lack of water and lack of arable land etc. It has the potential to be a problem if something isn't done soon.



Australia's Population growth rate isn't 2.1%, it's 1.1%



> 1.195% (2009 est.)
> country comparison to the world: 112


https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/as.html


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

> *POPULATION GROWTH RATES*
> Australia's population grew by 2.1% during the 12 months ended 30 June 2009. Natural increase and net overseas migration contributed 36% and 64% respectively to this total population growth.
> All states and territories experienced positive population growth over the 12 months ended 30 June 2009. Western Australia recorded the largest percentage gain (3.0%) and Tasmania the smallest (1.0%).


Source

Over the 12 months, we grew by 2.1%


----------



## Hyperspace (Mar 13, 2010)

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> Australia is growing faster than Canada. We're the fastest growing OECD country (currently growing at nearly 500,000/year). If we continue such growth (500,000/year - though it's likely to increase as the population increases, duh) our population will be over 37 million by 2050. By 2050 if we maintain a 2.1% pop. growth, we would be growing at nearly 800,000/year. Now, on top of all that, add into the equation Australia's love for big houses, big backyards, lack of water and lack of arable land etc. It has the potential to be a problem if something isn't done soon.


I think this "add into the equation Australia's love for big houses, big backyards" is the biggest problem. Because there are countries far smaller than Australia today that have larger populations. Try South Korea, with nearly 50 million people. Yes I'm sure you will be adding a lot of people, but the obvouis answer is to build highrises or even another major city. They make it sound like this is a major crisis, but the soultions are rather simple.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

The problem is getting people to do so. We're much like the US when it comes to housing.

Interesting article;



DrDan said:


> * High-rise tower push to halt urban sprawl*
> MARIKA DOBBIN AND DEWI COOKE
> March 16, 2010
> http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/highrise-tower-push-to-halt-urban-sprawl-20100315-q9n5.html
> ...


----------



## Cariad (Sep 22, 2005)

This article is somewhat doom and gloom and of course I am sure that habits will change in future, whether it is to do with lack of land, pricing, or whether it is a change in housing needs, such as the rise in single households, or those who are being environmentally and economically conscious, meaning that such people have no call for the 5 bedrooms McMansions, leading to densification of cities.
Even though Australia is a large country, we do not have the immediate luxury of furthering sprawl, because beyond is inhospitable dry, arid desert. The main concern is that we are barely sustaining ourselves now at a population of 22 million, how will we survive with 35 million? The answer being, the same as everyone else, infrastructure will change, utilities will change, the work force will change and we adapt and evolve. No country or city is exactly the same as it was in 1960, they probably thought the same thing, but here we are.
There is no need to worry, we always find a solution.
I imagine that in 2050 that we will pretty much be a desalination and recycled water country, places live like that now. I would hope we live cleaner on solar and photovoltaic’s, be home growers of veggies and fruit to help buffer the farming community, I don’t think it is a “hippy dream” but possibly a necessity that we do it.
I think I would be more concerned if I was living in Tokyo, Sao Paulo, London, New York and so on, because these will reach saturation point much sooner than Melbourne or Sydney.
I also think that if Las Vegas can survive and prosper, then cities within the bush can flourish.


----------



## Hyperspace (Mar 13, 2010)

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> The problem is getting people to do so. We're much like the US when it comes to housing.


We have built cities in deserts though, so I wouldn't say it's impossible. As far as the environment goes I think Las Vegas and Phoneix are far worse than the Australian outback.


----------



## spiralout (Jul 16, 2008)

if the whole dooms day global warming scenario holds true then Australia could be in big trouble given that all of our large cities are on the coast. I guess other countries would be in a similarly bad predicament however.

I'm sure we'll never run out of water...if worse comes to worse we can always find more ways of being more efficient or build more desalination plants.

The article is right in its suggestion that we have to get serious about infrastructure. As long as we do this then we should cope better then most other countries


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

Hyperspace said:


> We have built cities in deserts though, so I wouldn't say it's impossible. As far as the environment goes I think Las Vegas and Phoneix are far worse than the Australian outback.


Without dragging this too far off-topic ... What pull factors are there for any Australians to want to live in the outback? As far as I know, none. We have cities in the outback already, and we have this debate _weekly_ in the OzScrapers section. That aside, I think if you yourself were to visit the Australian Outback, you would most likely find that it's worse than anything you have in the US, not to mention substantially larger - without calculating the risk of our deadly animals. After all, we're not called the "driest inhabited continent on earth" for no reason. Just look at this map, I think you can figure out by the colours of the land, where most of the people live (if you can't, we live in the green bits).









_wiki_


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

Cariad said:


> Even though Australia is a large country, we do not have the immediate luxury of furthering sprawl, because beyond is inhospitable dry, arid desert. The main concern is that we are barely sustaining ourselves now at a population of 22 million, how will we survive with 35 million?


Don't really understand this. Just a few month ago I drove from Townsville to Brisbane and I found it remarkable how empty the land is between cities. And there were no deserts. Just forests, bushland and green pastures. You could built another Australia of 22 million just on that empty strip of coastal Queensland.

There is also more than enough space in far North Queensland and Northern Territory. Especially the proximity to Asia and abundance of fresh water can be seen as an advanatge.


----------



## eastadl (May 28, 2007)

As far as water goes, Australia can support a significantly higher population. The problem is that nearly ever house has to have an English style garden with lawns that waste enormous amounts of water. In my dry city of Adelaide, its really quite silly. This water has been pumped from a river or reservoir, then put through energy intensive filtration plants, to be then used for watering a garden. WTF - what stupid waste. Reusing household water, collecting rain water and storm water, would cut our cities usage of mains water by 60%+. Some of our new suburbs have this water reuse, but generally, all we do is build desalination plants to make sure we can completely waste water and resources at our current rate for another 50-100 years:bash:

One good thing my city has done has built a pipeline from a sewerage treatment works, that now waters all of the parks and gardens in the city centre of Adelaide, with treated water. This is what needs to happen more


----------



## intensivecarebear (Feb 2, 2006)

eastadl said:


> As far as water goes, Australia can support a significantly higher population. The problem is that nearly ever house has to have an English style garden with lawns that waste enormous amounts of water. In my dry city of Adelaide, its really quite silly. This water has been pumped from a river or reservoir, then put through energy intensive filtration plants, to be then used for watering a garden. WTF - what stupid waste. Reusing household water, collecting rain water and storm water, would cut our cities usage of mains water by 60%+. Some of our new suburbs have this water reuse, but generally, all we do is build desalination plants to make sure we can completely waste water and resources at our current rate for another 50-100 years:bash:


It's kind of the same problem where I'm from in California, USA. It's really dry here in general and, like Australia, water is a major issue. Especially since, like you mentioned in Australia, quite a few people here like having huge lawns and plants that don't fit well with the climate. Fortunately there is a trend of people using more 'native' plants and landscaping their land using less water. So that said, if people are going to insist on living in more 'low-rise' single family housing, I believe that they least they could do is use methods that conserve as much water as possible, instead of opting for huge impossibly green lawns.


----------



## Cariad (Sep 22, 2005)

goschio said:


> Don't really understand this. Just a few month ago I drove from Townsville to Brisbane and I found it remarkable how empty the land is between cities. And there were no deserts. Just forests, bushland and green pastures. You could built another Australia of 22 million just on that empty strip of coastal Queensland.
> 
> There is also more than enough space in far North Queensland and Northern Territory. Especially the proximity to Asia and abundance of fresh water can be seen as an advanatge.


It is true there is a lot more land, but one would hope that we try not to build in our green areas, national parkland areas, land zoned for well needed farms and industry, but indeed cities like Rockhampton, Townsville and Gladstone and so on, c(w)ould sustain a much larger population. We need to encourage our smaller cities to grow, but in truth and probablility it will be the usual suspects that grow and grow.


----------



## Cariad (Sep 22, 2005)

intensivecarebear said:


> It's kind of the same problem where I'm from in California, USA. It's really dry here in general and, like Australia, water is a major issue. Especially since, like you mentioned in Australia, quite a few people here like having huge lawns and plants that don't fit well with the climate. Fortunately there is a trend of people using more 'native' plants and landscaping their land using less water. So that said, if people are going to insist on living in more 'low-rise' single family housing, I believe that they least they could do is use methods that conserve as much water as possible, instead of opting for huge impossibly green lawns.


This is thankfully happening here also, we are becoming tuned to dry spell gardening, natives and other "one drop" plants.


----------



## Skyrazer (Sep 9, 2009)

Can we sustain a much larger population? Yes.

Have we been doing a good job of it so far? No!

Our state governments need to get their ass into gear and stop dragging their feet over things like infrastructure (NSW I'm looking at you). No wonder so many people advocate for abolishing them. Australia also needs to change its attitude and give up the "Australian Dream" of large blocks of land in suburbia with massive lawns and multiple car ownership for mum, dad, Johnny and Jane who's about to turn 16 (baby boomers I'm looking at you). It's a shocker just how religiously people here still cling to this unsustainable and frankly, out-of-date lifestyle.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

No Phoenix's please


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Skyrazer said:


> Can we sustain a much larger population? Yes.
> 
> Have we been doing a good job of it so far? No!
> 
> Our state governments need to get their ass into gear and stop dragging their feet over things like infrastructure (NSW I'm looking at you). No wonder so many people advocate for abolishing them. Australia also needs to change its attitude and give up the "Australian Dream" of large blocks of land in suburbia with massive lawns and multiple car ownership for mum, dad, Johnny and Jane who's about to turn 16 (baby boomers I'm looking at you). It's a shocker just how religiously people here still cling to this unsustainable and frankly, out-of-date lifestyle.


Totalitarian social engineering at is best - "I don't like your lifestyle, it is uncool and I want the government to outlaw it because it hurts my feelings".


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> Totalitarian social engineering at is best - "I don't like your lifestyle, it is uncool and I want the government to outlaw it because it hurts my feelings".


But then you go around the board saying exactly the same thing too with your "suburban" and "pro-car" agenda.


----------



## Skyrazer (Sep 9, 2009)

Suburbanist said:


> Totalitarian social engineering at is best - "I don't like your lifestyle, it is uncool and I want the government to outlaw it because it hurts my feelings".


Oh geez, give me a bloody break! It's not about declaring something "uncool" and outlawing it, it's about making needed changes if we are to grow at the projected rate without our cities basically falling apart. Just ask some residents of far flung suburbs in western Sydney what they think about spending upto over 4 hours travelling to and from work everyday.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

^^ I would imagine most of them work closer to home. Very few people in the outskirts of Sydney travel to downtown Sydney on a regular basis. 

Otherwise I'm not a fan of low density sprawl. Justing making that point.


----------



## Skyrazer (Sep 9, 2009)

Justme said:


> ^^ I would imagine most of them work closer to home. Very few people in the outskirts of Sydney travel to downtown Sydney on a regular basis.
> 
> Otherwise I'm not a fan of low density sprawl. Justing making that point.


True, but if it takes somebody to get somewhere within a city 2 hours or more because of bad congestion caused by badly served suburban sprawl, I'd say it's a problem that won't be solved with more sprawl...


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Skyrazer said:


> True, but if it takes somebody to get somewhere within a city 2 hours or more because of bad congestion caused by badly served suburban sprawl, I'd say it's a problem that won't be solved with more sprawl...


It amuses me anyway this line of reasoning. Taking some common say from abroad (US):

- someone living in a big suburb at Houston, spending 90-120 minutes to commute daily in his/her car: waste, loss of quality of life, stress etc.

- someone living in a far-flung New York working class community, spending 90-120 minutes to commute daily in cramped LIRR/MTA train + bus: cool, vibrant life, vitality of transit schemes, cheer-for-that-density.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Skyrazer said:


> True, but if it takes somebody to get somewhere within a city 2 hours or more because of bad congestion caused by badly served suburban sprawl, I'd say it's a problem that won't be solved with more sprawl...


True. I'm not a fan of urban sprawl. I myself live in an apartment within walking distance to the city center and love it.

But there still is a need for houses and gardens as some people do prefer that lifestyle.

What is needed is a good balance of urban density. And it is a clear case that most of the main Australian cities are far too swayed already on the side of low density and further expansion. These options should still be available for those who choose it, but there should be more development in higher density living closer to the core of the cities.


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> It amuses me anyway this line of reasoning. Taking some common say from abroad (US):
> 
> - someone living in a big suburb at Houston, spending 90-120 minutes to commute daily in his/her car: waste, loss of quality of life, stress etc.
> 
> - someone living in a far-flung New York working class community, spending 90-120 minutes to commute daily in cramped LIRR/MTA train + bus: cool, vibrant life, vitality of transit schemes, cheer-for-that-density.


AMEN.

Public transit isn't all that ideal. I took the Chicago El one time during rush hour from one of its nothern stations to go to a Cubs game. To be quite honest with you, I don't think I could make that commute everyday. I would rather be in my car, listening to the radio, and sitting on a comfortable seat--not being crowded in, listening to freaks talking to themselves. Gobforbid taking public transit in the dead of winter and having to get up early to catch a train. 

Two hour commutes are ridiculous whether you are in a car or not. But a 30 minute commute one way in a car from the city to the suburb isn't bad. It is possible to own/commute with a car and have a house with a yard in almost every single American city. It is possible to own a car and a large house in a suburb with an easy commute in almost every American city.


----------



## Skyrazer (Sep 9, 2009)

Suburbanist said:


> It amuses me anyway this line of reasoning. Taking some common say from abroad (US):
> 
> - someone living in a big suburb at Houston, spending 90-120 minutes to commute daily in his/her car: waste, loss of quality of life, stress etc.
> 
> - someone living in a far-flung New York working class community, spending 90-120 minutes to commute daily in cramped LIRR/MTA train + bus: cool, vibrant life, vitality of transit schemes, cheer-for-that-density.


It amuses me that you continually assume my line of thought and conclusions. I don't really care what lifestyle people prefer and I'm not out to throw around labels, but this is in regards to Australian cities where badly implemented suburban sprawl has been creating some serious ramifications on the functioning of our cities. Again, it's not about making something "trendy" and "cool" and denouncing the other, it's about changing something that is clearly not working too well for us here.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

I think having the public transport alternative is what is needed. Drive if you want, but allow those who can't, don't or won't drive to make use of other alternatives. I would rather sit on a crowded train/subway than drive. 

As for Suburbanist, he is just a dickhead with little more than a PHD in being brain-dead. People like him don't deserve to see the light of day. Which luckily for him, his head is so far up his own ass he doesn't see it anyway .


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

I agree with you. Cars are important, but we shouldn't be too dependent on them.


----------



## city_thing (May 25, 2006)

Hyperspace said:


> They keep making a big deal over Australia's exploding population, but 35 million is still a miniscule population. *I know Australia is landlocked*, but it still seems like a lot of fuss over nothing. I mean Canada will have 42 million by then, yet all the population news out of Canada is about the rapidly aging population. Maybe I'm missing something?


Australia is landlocked? We're a fucking island! :nuts:

My God there are some idiots in the world.


----------



## thecarlost (Nov 6, 2005)

El Mariachi said:


> AMEN.
> 
> Public transit isn't all that ideal. I took the Chicago El one time during rush hour from one of its nothern stations to go to a Cubs game. To be quite honest with you, I don't think I could make that commute everyday. I would rather be in my car, listening to the radio, and sitting on a comfortable seat--not being crowded in


By declaring your preference over car and pointing one example of the most critical situation for a transport system, you're not telling me if public transportation is a bad choice.

In some systems Demmand is not properly attended. In some systems too, there is bad coverage of the system, but still is way different from saying that "Public Transit isn't all that ideal".


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

thecarlost said:


> By declaring your preference over car and pointing one example of the most critical situation for a transport system, you're not telling me if public transportation is a bad choice.
> 
> In some systems Demmand is not properly attended. In some systems too, there is bad coverage of the system, but still is way different from saying that "Public Transit isn't all that ideal".


but it isn't ideal for most people, particularly those in the U.S., Australia, Canada, etc. Most of us have grown up with the car and public transit will _never_ be more efficient and comfortable then using a car for the vast majority. Our lifestyles and culture cannot be changed so quickly by plopping light rail down and expecting us to use it instead of a car.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

Not necessarily. New York City has one of the most extensive subway systems in the world which carries over 5 million people daily. Melbourne has the world largest tram network with over 178 million passenger trips per year. While in other cities there is still a lack of public transport, people are beginning to realise that it is the way of the future and are looking to European and Asian cities as influence.

I personally find getting around on public transport a lot easier than driving. You don't have to find a car park, you don't have to walk 10km after you've found yourself a car park. You simply jump on, and jump off. No it may not be the most comfortable, but I do think that it's a more efficient and cost effective form of transport. With that said, attempts are being made to make the commute more comfortable for passengers.


----------



## intensivecarebear (Feb 2, 2006)

El Mariachi said:


> but it isn't ideal for most people, particularly those in the U.S., Australia, Canada, etc. Most of us have grown up with the car and public transit will _never_ be more efficient and comfortable then using a car for the vast majority. Our lifestyles and culture cannot be changed so quickly by plopping light rail down and expecting us to use it instead of a car.


Unchecked low density, car dependent sprawl has already negatively affected our lifestyles and culture in America and other places. No one's saying that EVERYONE has to throw away their car and ride a crowded dirty metro. But the point is I think there needs to be more realistic/sustainable urban development and more integration of a variety of public transit (buses, light rail, commuter rail) etc. 
Sometimes societies do need to go through 'uncomfortable' or even 'radical' changes in order to maintain a high standard of living. It's become clear, I think, that the suburban car dependent lifestyle in its current form has had an adverse affect on health and wellness in the U.S. for example


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> Not necessarily. New York City has one of the most extensive subway systems in the world which carries over 5 million people daily. Melbourne has the world largest tram network with over 178 million passenger trips per year. While in other cities there is still a lack of public transport, people are beginning to realise that it is the way of the future and are looking to European and Asian cities as influence.
> 
> I personally find getting around on public transport a lot easier than driving. You don't have to find a car park, you don't have to walk 10km after you've found yourself a car park. You simply jump on, and jump off. No it may not be the most comfortable, but I do think that it's a more efficient and cost effective form of transport. With that said, attempts are being made to make the commute more comfortable for passengers.


the difference is that New York City is one of the biggest, densest cities in the world. And these European/Asian cities grew up around public transit, are incredibely dense, and often are difficult to own cars in.

This isn't the case for most of the U.S., Canada, Australia, etc. The layout of cities and the spread of populations is so great that public transportion will remain a real option only for the poor, those who live in dense urban centers (Chicago, San Francisco, etc.), and the middle-upper class yuppies who sacrifice their cars in order to be "urban".


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

intensivecarebear said:


> Unchecked low density, car dependent sprawl has already negatively affected our lifestyles and culture in America and other places. No one's saying that EVERYONE has to throw away their car and ride a crowded dirty metro. But the point is I think there needs to be more realistic/sustainable urban development and more integration of a variety of public transit (buses, light rail, commuter rail) etc.
> Sometimes societies do need to go through 'uncomfortable' or even 'radical' changes in order to maintain a high standard of living. It's become clear, I think, that the suburban car dependent lifestyle in its current form has had an adverse affect on health and wellness in the U.S. for example


But this is what the people want. They want a house, garage, and yards. Are we going to make laws forbidding people from doing so and trying to stop them from owning cars? 

Public transit is a lost cause in the U.S. The development of the electric car will occur before people start sacrificing their time to take a train/bus. Anybody who has ever owned a car and taken public transit knows that public transit always loses unless the congestion/parking prices are excessive.


----------



## motion (Oct 13, 2009)

why is there so much focus on north/west south/west? Thats the problem with PT it is always only useful for one direction its almost impossible unless you have a new york subway system which goes every way north,south,east,west,ne,nw,se,sw. Whereas roads and highways can connect. 
We could not even build ONE PT system metro which goes in ONE direction for ONLY 20km from parra to city. it got shelved - imagine trying to build one in every direction - IMPOSSIBLE, so just bloody build the roads for the people. the M7 was a HUGE HUGE HUGE success!!!!! more roads are needed like this. it is the medium term answer until our city population hits around 7 mill.


----------



## Skyrazer (Sep 9, 2009)

motion said:


> why is there so much focus on north/west south/west? Thats the problem with PT it is always only useful for one direction its almost impossible unless you have a new york subway system which goes every way north,south,east,west,ne,nw,se,sw. Whereas roads and highways can connect.
> We could not even build ONE PT system metro which goes in ONE direction for ONLY 20km from parra to city. it got shelved - imagine trying to build one in every direction - IMPOSSIBLE, so just bloody build the roads for the people. the M7 was a HUGE HUGE HUGE success!!!!! more roads are needed like this. it is the medium term answer until our city population hits around 7 mill.


Ugh sigh, here we go again.

Look, we're not saying that PT is capable of covering everyone everywhere, we know that, and I do agree that Sydney could do with more roads, but a roads only solution is not the answer. Why do you insist on an either/or case? PT would be a facilitating remedy to the problem, it'll need to be used with other alternatives like more roards, bike paths, decentralising, etc. to solve the greater issue.

PT itself is not the solution to all of Sydney's transport problems I agree, but neither are roads.


----------



## motion (Oct 13, 2009)

Skyrazer said:


> Ugh sigh, here we go again.
> 
> Look, we're not saying that PT is capable of covering everyone everywhere, we know that, and I do agree that Sydney could do with more roads, but a roads only solution is not the answer. Why do you insist on an either/or case? PT would be a facilitating remedy to the problem, it'll need to be used with other alternatives like more roards, bike paths, decentralising, etc. to solve the greater issue.
> 
> PT itself is not the solution to all of Sydney's transport problems I agree, but neither are roads.


Yes but roads are badly needed where PT is not. Its so hard getting anywhere by road in Sydney, whereas in LA the freeways are clogged, but get you everywhere. In sydney everything is clogged and nothing gets you anywhere. 

Also in regards to PT we need to drop it. Focus on roads. PT is dead. we came close with the metro which was shelved. its over. The metro was very popular but was killed by the sydney morning herald, sydney council and anti-development groups (who ironically) would have been the people using the metro the most. Lets not kill roads now too.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

That's because they go against anything and everything proposed for the future of the city. They're more likely looking for a population cap, but guess that; it's not going to happen. Sydney is going to be a city of over 7 million come 2050 and there's very little they can do about it. Follow the standard currently being set by QLD by fixing roads as well as putting into place vital public transport for the future. 

I don't know how well traveled you are, but outside of Australia (and it's only like this because IMO even the bare essentials for PT aren't in place) people rely quite heavily on Public Transport. Look at London, New York... etc.


----------



## PeFe (Dec 6, 2009)

One 8 carriage double-decker Sydney train=2000(?)private motor vehicles(i.e. cars) so what should Sydney be doing in the near future?....building more roads or investing in better train services with new lines etc. Its a no brainer....


----------



## Scion (Apr 26, 2008)

Only 3 things are required for Australian cities to transform and cater for the population projections.

1. Any NIMBY who thinks the ENTIRE SUBURB or the ENTIRE COUNCIL AREA is "their backyard" needs to die off

2. Cheap labour and materials needs to somehow be made available to some of our financially struggling state governments - they are the ones that build, upgrade, and maintain our infrastructure.

3. Vision!!!!


----------



## Skyrazer (Sep 9, 2009)

motion said:


> Also in regards to PT we need to drop it. Focus on roads. PT is dead. we came close with the metro which was shelved. its over. The metro was very popular but was killed by the sydney morning herald, sydney council and anti-development groups (who ironically) would have been the people using the metro the most. Lets not kill roads now too.


The metro died because Sydney has a bad habit of bitching, whining, then canning anything and everything that resembles any sort of progression like it's stuck back in the year 2000. Do you honestly believe a new, radical proposal to lay down roads all over Sydney won't receive the same sort of treatment from the public/press/politics than the metro did? The NIMBYs and environmentalists will overrun Sydney in an orgy of rabid bitching.

It doesn't matter what is proposed, even if it may be the new best thing in urban transportation, there is always someone or some group in Sydney who will, one way or another, try and step in and stop it.


----------



## 863552 (Jan 27, 2010)

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> That's because they go against anything and everything proposed for the future of the city. They're more likely looking for a population cap, but guess that; it's not going to happen. Sydney is going to be a city of over 7 million come 2050 and there's very little they can do about it. Follow the standard currently being set by QLD by fixing roads as well as putting into place vital public transport for the future.
> 
> I don't know how well traveled you are, but outside of Australia (and it's only like this because IMO even the bare essentials for PT aren't in place) people rely quite heavily on Public Transport. Look at London, New York... etc.


Sydney will be 7 but Melbourne will be pushing 8mil how do you think we will cope!?


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

I'm hoping Melbourne will go about it better. Hopefully they'll just build build build and ignore the NIMBYs complaints!


----------



## 863552 (Jan 27, 2010)

Hmmm, I'm hoping for Box Hill and the Doncaster area to become really dense. Doncaster Rd is partially atm. If this happens they may fast track trains and trams.


----------



## msnwwww (Nov 5, 2010)

Lee is singing with deep feeling. NetEase Entertainment on July 19 reported on the 18th afternoon, Lee, carrying a new album, WOW Gold for sale, album signings will choose the first leg of Nanjing in the afternoon of the signings are the same as the temperature, fire earthshaking, just two Buy Aion Gold, Lee checks out the 4000 album, refresh Nanjing record ever signings. Lee just released debut album Radio clinch the title in the first WOW Power Leveling of pre-sale album also broke 20,000, wow gold for sale, has become the most popular albums ever, this high-quality music album, have begun to be invited all States to Buy WOW Gold activities.^^


----------



## Jack Daniel (Jun 6, 2008)

El Mariachi said:


> how will they cease to function? Like I said, you cannot blame the car for your problems. Your planning is at fault. Australia, from what you are telling me, wanted the car lifestyle without the car infastructure (American style freeway systems).
> 
> .


*Melbourne* is very car oriented.









http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/391973296/sizes/z/in/photostream/
























http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/4034488800/sizes/l/in/photostream/








http://www.flickr.com/photos/novakreo/28148734/sizes/z/in/photostream/








http://www.flickr.com/photos/caspar_borkowsky/2844595113/sizes/l/in/photostream/








http://images.theage.com.au/2010/02/15/1119599/Eastlink-420x0.jpg








www.advance.org/en/art/3023/








www.baulderstone.com.au/index.php?page=projec...









So is *Sydney*









www.panoramio.com/photo/13275740


----------



## Suissetralia (Oct 13, 2010)

^^ you could basically post pictures of highways from any developed city in the world, but that's totally meaningless. Just because there are highways in Switzerland doesn't mean the country is car-oriented; it just means the authorities aknowledge it is not efficient to reach every home with railroads and so a good mix of PT and cars is the way to go. The thing is, the denser the cities, the more efficient PT becomes and that's the problem that needs to be overcomed in australian cities, but that's a personal preference of those who purchase a home instead of a flat so the government can do little directly, it can encourage building more apartments, and stop investing in roads and improve rails... I am used to reach my job in less than 15 minutes by public transport so I wouldn't ever drive a car, i.e. given a good alternative to car it becomes much better to use public transport even in an economic-sense (no need to pay for fuel, the car, the insurance...), and given the last news coming from Australia about investments, their state governments are exactly doing that.


----------



## as87930 (Sep 3, 2010)

Jack Daniel said:


> *Melbourne* is very car oriented.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In my visit to Australia I did notice that its a very car-oriented society as a whole but I did not find Melbourne traffic to be too bad while Sydney had gridlock problems (though not as bad as where I come from but still quite bad by "first world" standards). Didn't spend long enough time in Brissie to make a conclusion!


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Suissetralia said:


> I am used to reach my job in less than 15 minutes by public transport so I wouldn't ever drive a car, i.e. given a good alternative to car it becomes much better to use public transport even in an economic-sense (no need to pay for fuel, the car, the insurance...), and given the last news coming from Australia about investments, their state governments are exactly doing that.


People don't make transportation choices solely on basis of costs or effectiveness. Same goes for housing. You can devise the perfectly optimized planning system with volume, heights, space defined to minimize the energy (or time, or money) spent by all city inhabitants to commute, but that doesn't mean people will abide, like, approve or embrace such a plan.

The richer people of a country are, the more likely they will be to make choices based on lifestyle, not on strictly economic effectiveness.


----------



## Suissetralia (Oct 13, 2010)

Suburbanist said:


> People don't make transportation choices solely on basis of costs or effectiveness. Same goes for housing. You can devise the perfectly optimized planning system with volume, heights, space defined to minimize the energy (or time, or money) spent by all city inhabitants to commute, but that doesn't mean people will abide, like, approve or embrace such a plan.
> 
> The richer people of a country are, the more likely they will be to make choices based on lifestyle, not on strictly economic effectiveness.


People don't base *any* decisions solely on the basis of cost or effectiveness. In fact, studies have shown that putting some feelings into important decisions result on better outcomes. But while when deciding over which home to buy the feelings-factor is very much relevant, it's almost totally nonexistant when deciding which soup to buy in the supermarket, where taste and price make the difference. For the same reason, given two people that need to go from point A to point B, if PT delivers shorter transport times than private cars, then rationally both of them will choose public transport, as it'd be both faster and cheaper; some other factors could influence the outcome, e.g. such as how safe is a train at 10pm, but that has nothing to do with the cost nor the efficiency of the public transport, that's an alien problem to the system itself and should be solved on a separate basis. 

Cars are here to stay, they are necessary, but there should be a good equilibrum between them and public transportation. While the cars are useful for linking remote places, they should generally be a no-no when commuting inside the main city or from nearby urban areas towards that central city; and I say generally because there are of course exceptions, for example you can't expect a mom to take her 2 kids to school by bus then go to work by train, but that's also because cars do become cost effective when used to capacity, but unfortunately that's not the case for most people. Applied to this case, that should mean road traffic infrastructure shouldn't expand anymore beyond the current suburbs nor should current capacity increase, and better public transport should be built to better communicate the whole cities. No more suburbs are needed, more density is. And being richer doesn't change that, I don't see Zurich dismantling its trams in the nearby future, in fact the mayor has tried several times in the past to do it but people voted against it.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

Suissetralia said:


> No more suburbs are needed, more density is. And being richer doesn't change that, I don't see Zurich dismantling its trams in the nearby future, in fact the mayor has tried several times in the past to do it but people voted against it.


I'm always surprized by how low the density can be for trams to be effective. Zürich is not a very dense city, I estimate it two times the density of typical suburbia in the US or Australia. There has to be a way to double the density of suburbia. Most favorable would be the halving of lot-size. Typical lots are 600-700m² big, but 350m² would already be good. On 350 m² you can build a house as big as the current houses, you just have to stack it like it's already done in europe. Put a garage between two houses. The houses themselves can have three stories (including ground story) and a cellar, providing even more room than the state-of-the-art suburban houses. If you do side-parking, you could store on ecar in the garage, one in front of it and one with side-parking on the sidewalk in front of the house. But the question is if you still need three cars as a family when the tram and buses are in reach, because population density now is 5,000/km² and not 2,500/km² like it is in todays suburbia.


----------



## invincible (Sep 13, 2002)

I'm late to this thread, but PT as a niche in Australia?

The trains are full (peak hours: 800 passengers per train, 6-12 trains per hour, 16 lines). Just one of these trains is a 1km long traffic jam. Road space is increasingly being taken away for trams and their passengers (and rightfully so).

Driving to the city, now that's a niche. With parking costing as much as $80 a day ($12 is the cheapest you'll reasonably find but only if you get into town before 10am), it's priced like one too.


----------

