A significantly more compact urban form in a city like Melbourne would improve public health, but it doesn't seem a very compelling justification for strategic land use policy.
The point is that the light regulatory touch in Utah has not prevented innovation or world leading design in urban development.
In August this year, that journal of inner city indulgence The Sydney Morning Herald published a front page story boldly declaring 'Sydney’s ten most liveable suburbs revealed.' Attention grabbing headline? Tick. Rigorous methodology? Fail.
That also means it won't generate any extra revenue that could be applied to public transport infrastructure. It might also hobble the extent to which pricing can be used as a tool to manage traffic.
At 10% of AWE before tax, it takes 12.2 years to put aside a 20% deposit today versus 8.9 25 years ago. That’s a significant increase, and many purchasers just don’t have that much patience.
It's a common charge but Melbourne's city centre apartment towers aren't remotely like real slums and nor are they likely to be in the forseeable future.
Central business districts – long the glamourous headquarter preference for leading professional service firms – are under increasing pressure from competing centres.
Tall residential towers are widely seen as inappropriate in the suburbs. But maybe the idea of 'the suburbs' is itself no longer appropriate
The association between rail infrastructure like High Speed Rail and increases in land value is nothing new; it was there when much of Victoria's rail network was built.
What’s not widely understood is that on both the global level and the Australian scale, this urban growth has been a suburban phenomenon.
And it is a very big elephant; the bipartisan target is over 200,000 for 2015/16, about the population of Hobart.
The best evidence we’ve got indicates that motorists do in fact pay the full
financial cost of building and maintaining the roads they require.