I agree, a day in the City or surrounds is a hot dry experience a Concrete Jungle I would hate to live there. We don't need any more of that High Density housing I am all for the bigger 1/4 acre block. It may make our younger generation get of their backsides if they have room to play in. Nothing worse than hearing the neighbours fighting and arguing when your boundary fence is right next to their house.. Or they are so high they can see everything you are doing I had enough of that when I lived down south. Imagine living like that here in Queensland where all the windows of the houses are open nine months of the year.. It would also block off those cooling breezes and the sun in the winter no its not for me...A bigger block so you can plant Bamboo to block those two story eye sores out and trees and shrubs everywhere and the veggie garden down the back, and enough room for a few chooks if you want them, and any other watchdogs..

I was chatting with our Local councilor last week, he was inspecting a project they were building on our street to slow down the weekend hoons who insist on using our road as a Grand Prix Circuit and he was saying that Brisbane CC was trying to being in new Laws for much smaller blocks like 400m2 goodness some of the houses are that big so where is the garden. Logan CC where trying to block it, how wonderful to hear that our Council is trying to do something good for the environment.. ....And if any one wants to build a pool I reckon they should install a tank at the same time so they can replace that precious drinking water they are wasting when they top it up. Disagree, I know you will but they are just my views and everyone has different ideas.... Cheers...MM.

Doug,

I couldn't agree more, there is nothing more horrible than driving from Brisbane to the Gold Coast [not only that highway , there are many others] and all you see is a long concrete tunnel with tile roofs showing above it. So depressing.

Flying over Brisbane seeing all the little patches of pure water trapped in swimming pools, MM, that is a good idea to have a tank to use to refill them.

Maybe, when the Pool fences are put in a cover for the water to try to stop evaporation would be a wonderful idea.

I know some folk here have beautiful pools in their gardens, but maybe someone could make an absolute fortune inventing a pool cover that will not detract from the garden environment they are in.
Marion, who left Brisbane in the late 60's when it was still a large country town full of trees.

marion, youre absolutely right about the pool covers, we have one and it only comes off when the pool is being used, and we get virtually no evaporation at all. they really should be compulsory in my opinion.

trancegemini

Hi Doug
Re pools, we have one at the acreage which is in the tender hands of tenants. Normally (whatever that is), it's filled from dam water but right now that's too low so we are all busy hoping for a significant fall. Anyway....the chemicals people gave me a pamphlet which mentioned a rebate of $200 from Gold Coast Council on a cover worth over $350 and which suggested asking one's local authority what they were prepared to offer. Apart from giving the kids an alternative to the dam for swimming, a pool on acreage is regarded as a reserve for the rural firies to use if necessary. Ours would get only 5-6 hours sun a day which must help a little with evaporative loss; also the fence on the east consists of ironbark palings which reduce the wind quite well.

Interesting about the effect of building materials... I wonder if anyone has actually quantified the contribution cf. with pre-European situation. Thatched roofs! Must say I like pavers etc to be shaded. My eyes are very hostile to glare.
Rose

Mistymorn,
Maybe we should go underground and landscape the roof.LOL

Ashmeri, here is a bit of trivia.
How large would the tank need to be?
According to the experts the AVERAGE evaporation rate on a body of water is 3mm per day. Say a pool is 10M by 4M that is 40 square metres of water. The average evaporation rate per day would be 120 litres or 840 litres per week or 43800 litres per year.
When we multiply that by the number of swimming pools, ponds and fountains both public and private the water loss is huge. Now add the loss from all our water storage dams and the loss is staggering.
That 3mm per day is pretty much true as we have a large farm dam and being our only supply or water for irrigation I do keep a close eye on our usage. Our greatest loss is around September when we get hot dry NW winds where we can lose up to 15mm per day. In the humid weather the loss is minimal.

Rose,
I believe there are some covers available that will support the weight of a child and not sink like the lightweight ones.

Doug.

Doug,
It sure would have to be a big tank, maybe the tanks to live in and the Macmansions to store water would be the way to go. LOL

We have been watching our dam water disappear into the wide blue yonder for the last couple of months, It is our only water apart from the 24,000 galons [how many litres is that ) of rain water we have. Every roof has a tank and some have runover tanks.
The dam water is getting muddier as it goes down so plants get a cover of clay.

I must say I envy our friends in town who can turn on a tap and out gushes clean water that leaves everything looking fresh and clean but wouldn't want to live there. Enjoy our quiet little corner of the world with no close neighbours and only the odd car along the road,

Rose, I do hope your area got some of the rain that was about, we scored 35 mls but just gentle rain that soaked in beautifully, not running rain for the dam.

Marion

I have seen roofs planted Doug but only on TV its a thought though..But I think from memory those houses are built up against a hill of sorts..

That's amazing to hear that my lovely neighbours next door use more water a year to top up their pool than I do to keep all my 3/4 acre of plants alive, also the veggies, and water and clean the chooks houses, washing, showering, baths, dishes and toilets that's mind blowing. I don't feel so bad now as I felt guilty watering my new roses though as they get older are needing a lot less.... We got 1.5 mm yesterday ..Cheers....MM.

here's some rediculous urban sprawl - in Dicky Beach. All done for money. The original house was sold for $450,000 and the two subdivided blocks sold for $350,000 each.

On the original block of land there was one four bedroom house and a garden. That block now has two houses and two pools.

There's not enough room between the two houses to put in two paths and a fence. The house on the right is built to within 300mm of the fence line and as the fence line is nearly half a metre out, the house walls are where the boundary should be (or maybe over the boundary a bit).

Don't you love progress??
{{gwi:2111871}}
{{gwi:2111872}}

!!! Thats Terrible !!!

Glad I dont live up your way.
What happened to privacy they will be able to hear every word everyone says.
This is just the thing Logan C.C. Dont want Thank goodness....MM.

Doug, yes, the strong pool covers give an added level of protection against carelessness. Remember when one of our councillors thought it might be good to go for childproof fencing of acreage dams. Stalling on a decision about any cover until the rain prospects change again.

Marion, we had 60.6 mm in one fall last week, soaking stuff like yours. The decimal point is there because the neighbour who reports to us has an electronic weather station in the kitchen :) His latest toy.

Some lifestyle acreage, the real estate ads mention their 'tank farms' e.g. 9 x substantial tanks connected up.
.

mm - there is no privacy - with the stuff up about the boundary line the builders knocked down the one tree that would have given me privacy, they've built a deck over the pool which is above the height of the fence. - so there'll be a shock for someone when they move in and see me prancing around starkers inside my house.....(I've given up gardening naked) :-)

OK, I agree that the 400 sq m blocks are crazy, but I think we are being a bit defeatist if we tell ourselves that you cant have a garden with a large house on a 400 sq m block.

The trick is to use bamboo/golden canes or similar for the boundaries, then get creative with the front and rear of the house. I have seen some amazing 'troppo' efforts in tiny courtyards in Brissie - its more about the attitude of the occupants than anything else. Most city dwellers seem to crave the 'low-maintenance' lifestyle, but I cant see a well-designed garden taking more than a couple of hours per week : we all spend a lot more than this in front of the idiot box.

The irony is that many of the people in smaller inner-city houses have enough disposable income to pay a landscaper to put the garden/irrigation system in. I guess having a media room is a higher priority than surrounding oneself with nature.

Cheers,

Artie

I only wish the blocks were 400sq m where I live, but unfortunately in my neighbourhood you can put a house on every 250sq m so you can imagine the room that leaves for a garden. I do think youre right artie that if enough land is left around the house that some type of garden is possible, but unfortunately the developers tend to make the houses as big as possible and dont give much thought to anything else. the new houses on these small blocks that are springing up everywhere in my neighbourhood are sometimes positioned so that at least some houses get a streetfront (the council strip), and the gardens they put in there before the houses are sold off are just awful in my opinion. they take one or two plants and just mass plant them, dont worry about trees etc and then it's up to the neighbours around them who have a normal sized block (which around here is usually about 750-800sqm - so not all that big), to plant along their fenceline for privacy because the developers on the adjoining blocks didnt leave room for that sort of thing (or paved whatever area was left right up to the fence).

Trancegemini

artiew - around dicky beach there are blocks of 300 - 350 square metres selling for $1200 a square metre.

My little block is about 400 square metres (haven't had the tape measure out recently) = the two blocks from one that I provided pictures of above was originally a 600sqm block

It's a disgrace that the highly educated imbeciles that become town planners are allowed to line their pockets from the developers greed.

Alexander the Great had it just about right when he planned Alexandria - he set 600-800 square metres as the required amount of land for a family to house themselves and provide a little fruit and vegetables. All houses built in early Alexandria had to have this amount of land.

"Town planners" (an oxymoron?) are taking the slum settlements of Sydney as the standard housing block - The Rocks, Padington, Wolloomoollooloo - all were slums and had 150-200 square metres of building on a 150-200 square metre block. The "town planners" now consider that the norm.

There are new estates around Caloundra - Caloundra City Council seems to be the worst offender on the sunshine coast - where the houses are allowed to take up to 80% of the block - the other 20% is the mandatory 6metre front yard and the swimming pool. There are many houses in Kawana Island where the gutters almost touch and theres not even enough room for a hills hoist. If you drive past all you see is a 2.5 metre high wall surrounding each little castle and the tiled rooves nestling cheek by jowel with each other.

Come the revolution, or the next holocaust or the rising of sea levels - what will all of these people do for food - starve or steal from those of us who have developed productive back yards?

Sorry - this is one of my high horses - houses on handkerchieves.

I am confused. If this is a discussion about urban sprawl and its effects on our environment then some arguments being expressed are contradictory.

Urban sprawl is caused by uncontrolled development of what was once open ground to suburban size blocks. In our cities where populations have grown at record rates development has been out of control and the developer has exploited the opportunities for profit. We have got some good developments and a lot of really badly planned ones. The dream of us all having a backyard even if it is much smaller is now matched with house sizes that are ridiculously excessive.

My belief is that the suburban block should be a luxury not a right. Some of this stuff was mentioned in before in the Âwasting water discussion. Urban sprawl which means the demand for suburban blocks is killing our cities. The land area that our cities occupy is much much larger than any in most cities in Europe. Before the motor car we lived in much more compact areas now it is way out of control. As much as I too love my garden at least 80% of suburbanites should be elsewhere.

The suburban block is the cause of so many of our environmental problems. Melbourne covers 8806 sq. km. By comparison, New York city and all of its suburbs covers 8684 sq. km yet has a population 5 times as great. As a result of this ugly suburban sprawl the cost has been the dependence on cars, clogged freeways, huge ugly shopping malls taking over from local centres, abnormally high costs of other infrastructure such as inadequate public transport, cabling for electricity communications, gas etc. If this country is going to continue to expand at its present rate and we are to remain sustainable, then we need a major rethink in our way of living.

On the East Coast of Australia excellent arable land is now occupied by the urban sprawl. Good land on the east coast is a limited resource and it is being treated like fossil fuels i.e. it is going to last for ever. The baby boomer generations and their kids are by far the greediest and most ecologically damaging to this planet so far.

Misty Morn, Sorry, but I disagree with your idea that bigger blocks are better for the environment. I certainly do not agree with suburban blocks being divided into two but higher density living in properly planned communities is needed to contain this ugly sprawl. Also those slum developments you claim to be in Paddington, The Rocks etc. are now worth millions of dollars each. They are close to good transport, the city which provides a lot of needs. While suburbanites sit in their cars in clogged traffic on hot freeways, wasting hours getting to and from work, their shopping, entertainment etc. the inner city dwellers relax on their balconies spending more time with families friends etc. These days the slums tend to be out in some of the suburbs where it is cheaper.

I myself am a bit of a contradiction; I spend my working days (less so these days thankfully)...

Robert, you're absolutely right about the contradiction: the need to contain urban sprawl conflicts directly with people's desire for their own private gardens. You're one of the lucky ones, able to enjoy the benefits of both inner-city and country living. Indeed, this is a common situation in Europe, where many people live in flats (often leased flats, but the leasing laws effectively mean that they have the flats for life) but have holiday homes in the country. Unfortunately, many people can't afford to do this, esp. in Australia where there really is very little security of tenancy and where market rentals leave no money left over to fund another residence.

Not everyone wants to have a private garden, but the choices available are so limited, esp. for people with children and pets. We need designs that allow high-density living with common play areas where the children can ride their bikes and play in safety; plus areas where those residents who are interested in gardening can do so. (Not just mass plantings tended to by a subcontractor every fortnight.) And, of course, detached houses with gardens for those who prefer that style of living.

If you make a garden a luxury, then the only people who will have gardens are the rich. Surely that's not the solution? What we need are more choices, and more affordable choices for the bulk of people who aren't wealthy.

Well everyone we all have different ideas of how and where we would like to live... No concrete jungle for me...My Choice..Plenty of them in Melbourne though with not enough room for families or children to play..Their choice but most times they would prefer a decent back yard to play in.. If people want to live in the Inner City thats their choice also. I dont remember writing anything about slums Robert.

I am now off to go and do some gardening on my 2800 m2 block, like plant a few more things to make sure our clean air here stays that way...Cheers...MM.

OK, Robert- you have clearly set the cat among the pigeons. I agree that there are 'economies of scale' inherent in stacking humans on top of one another in apartment buildings (hello, NYC ..) but how many of us can handle that lifestyle. Perhaps the privileged few (such as yourself), able to escape to their 'weekender' on the coast, but those who have to live in a box 24x7 would probably offer a different view of the experience.

Call me greedy, but I really long to be on several acres, preferably in a position where I cant see (or hear) any of my neighbours. For a 'country town', many parts of Rocky are surprisingly urban, with a growng trend toward subdivision for townhouses etc. This isnt restricted to any particular part of the town, and I find much of Rocky an abyss of barking dogs and whippersnippers. For all that, I dont want to stray too far from work or things like town water : I guess we are all prisoners of the 'economies of scale' after all.

Cheers,

Artie

Some of the problem is the sea-changers/tree-changers. City folk all want that little piece of quiet paradise but when everyone moves there, it becomes crowded and greed rears its ugly head.

A combination of population caps, minimum sized blocks and an incentive to move to towns that actually need more people. There are plenty of small towns that are struggling to stay viable and becoming ghost towns, as all the younger people move to the cities. Sensible planning is needed to prevent problems with water, etc. Second thoughts, is that possible with the idiots that do the planning now?

It is much better for our kids to be in smaller towns/schools than living in high-rises and no yards. It might be fine for singles or childless couples but having a lot of children in areas with little room to play is asking for trouble from boredom, drugs, vandalism, etc.

Misty, I am sorry, it was not you. I just bunched all the answers together in my haste.

It was Paradisi, March 13:
"Town planners.... are taking the slum settlements of Sydney as the standard housing block - The Rocks, Padington, Wolloomoollooloo - all were slums and had 150-200 square metres of building on a 150-200 square metre block. The "town planners" now consider that the norm."

If we all had suburban blocks there would be no room left! Also the cost of infrastructure would be horrendous.

robert I dont think youre reading peoples comments properly. I do realise that development is necessary but putting large houses on 250sqm blocks out in the suburbs is in my opinion just out of greed. Im not even in the inner city, Im out in the suburbs and I can see that these small blocks are just creating a concrete jungle, If that's what I wanted, I would have moved into the city.

all the trees are disappearing, there is no thought put into incorporating a garden area into most of these new houses, and that is the problem, the blocks are way too small, the houses are made as big as possible, and there is either no garden or if there is a streetfront, any type of garden is a quick afterthought that the developers bung in at the last minute. the only thing on the developers mind is maximum return, no thought is given to privacy or leaving enough space for a garden and that is my big concern.

basically, in my opinion, the block sizes are just way too small for the suburbs, and if it werent for the existing gardens the birds would have no where to go. this is not enviromentally sound in my opinion, and turning the suburbs into a concrete jungle is not what people wanted when they moved there. by making the block sizes so small means every single block (avg size 750-800sqm) automatically becomes a triplex block, it's rediculous, and as you drive around my neighbourhood, all you see are houses disappearing everywhere and 3 new houses going up in its place. everytime one of these new residents has a party, there is not even any parking space so everyone elses front yard becomes a parking lot. large dogs are being housed in tiny courtyards, there are now young children roaming up and down the street to play, unsupervised, because essentially these people are trying to live a suburban lifestyle on a totally unsuitable site.

it's a nice thought that these areas can be planned properly, but the reality is the developers plan these properties to get the highest price and move on to the next property, they dont care about the long term issues of their bad planning.

trancegemini

That's OK Robert, we all get a little carried away at times.
Now about living in the city type of Unit, when I first met my hubby he lived in one of those close to the CBD in Melbourne and he said that the air was so bad and choked with exhaust fumes he could not even open a window, now being in the building trade and scaffolding all the huge buildings in the CBD and working up very high he breathed that S!!! all day and did not want to come home to that same air every night. He hates A/C we don't even use the split system we have here. So most of those people living in those kind of places must have A/C, you say they sit on their Balconies how can they stand the pollution coming up from the street...

GH said it right we need the people to go and live in all these small towns but with water and jobs not available they cant even though they want to....Qld Government say "Come to Qld and Live " and they are, they come here in their thousands every week but what do the Gov do not a thing they don't increase our Doctors or Hospital workers, or build new Dams they do not do a thing to cope with this so blame them, while they line their, and their family and friends pockets it all boils down to ""GREED"" as its them who are causing this URBAN SPRAWL as the more houses that get built the more taxes and rates they can collect

And what TG states as well houses much too big for the small blocks they are built on, GREED again by the developers the local Government should not be allowing that, people do not need to be squashed in together, that's like living in someones pocket. Not my idea of a life .....MM.

Trancegemini,

Sorry but I have read the posts correctly, apart from being too hasty in my typing and therefore mistaking Paradisi's comments as Misty's. I was late for work. I stand by all else that I have written.

I agree that the form of development that you have described is unsuitable. It is just a cheaper version of urban sprawl. It is driven by the preference that buyers have for just the suburban block rather than a more organised and balanced mix of higher density living, community shops, larger parklands, etc. and fast transport. Government knows that urban sprawl is getting out of hand and by making blocks smaller, it is supposed to slow it down. Of course it is not slowing. But it is having an enormous strain on infrastructure. I feel many outer suburbs will end up as the slums of the future just as they have in the USA.

Economies of scale naturally means that services like trains and buses are going to be much more difficult to run in a sprawl than in higher density communities. Before the car, people occupied a footprint a tenth to a fifteenth of what we do now. As a result of the car we take up ten to fifteen times more space. So it follows that it costs that much more for services and inconveniences. When the price of petrol gets even higher as it is bound to, the outer suburbs will be really hit.

Where transport hubs are and commerce and shopping exists, Goverments should zone for higher density housing. There are many examples of excellent high density living with adjacent parks and gardens in Europe and the USA. But right now there are not enough votes in it. There will be inevitably though.

There are many examples of outer suburbs that have become slums because of the lack of services and amenties being provided. One classic example is Los Angeles where I have spent some time. With reliance on the motorcar and very little consideration for public transport and decent educational facilities, parks, health facilities etc., there are now suburban "no go crime zones" where everyone has a backyard but nothing else. People feel so isolated with support facilities so negligible and morale is so low that crime is rampant. Freeways spaghetti everywhere and yet are still clogged. Billions are now being spent on railways but far too late.

Of course everyone in these garden forums are entitled to their garden blocks but that does not mean that there must be some sensible thought into how our cities as a whole will be sustained. It also follows that inner-city high density living can also be quite enjoyable.

Most folk need to live close to their work and to the things that gives them pleasure. Urban sprawl has resulted in clogged roads and unreliable public transport services. In order to save on the time it takes to travel they choose to live in higher density communities. Mostly it is surprisingly pleasant believe it or not. I know many more folk in my street than I did when I lived in the "Burbs". We...

I agree with Robert's last post - we cant just continue to push our cities ever westward (or eastward if you live in WA :) ).

One of the ironies of the rush to SE Qld, as MM pointed out, is that many coastal communities now have the very same problems they were trying to escape when they moved from Melbourne/Sydney/wherever : from crime to traffic.

Some of you may remember the grandiose plans that several state governments had for 'de-centralisation' back in the 70's, but I have to wonder if any of them actually got off the ground. Victoria seems to be the only state where it was viable to have a large number of regional centres such as Bendigo and Geelong, and I have to wonder if the relative ease of travelling through that small state has something to do with that. Until recently, I believe that Qld was the only state which had more people resident outside the capital city than within its boundaries - I suspect that Brissie's rampant growth has destroyed that claim to fame. Most of us can see a day when the entire corner, from Noosa to the Tweed and out to Gatton, will be comparable to the monster that Gosford to Wollongong has become.

For all the doom and gloom, if a place like Singapore can invest in public parks and gardens, then surely we can follow their lead in Oz. Some of the rooftop gardens that Made Wijaya and others have built in various parts of (urban) Asia take my breath away - perhaps it should be part of the building code ?

We can only blame so much on government agencies and developers - until we, the people, begin to take action it will all be for naught. Even if we have nothing more than a few herbs on a windowsill, it has to be preferable to a sea of concrete and bitumen.

robert, youre assuming everyone wants to live in the city and hang out in the cappucino strips, but that doesnt suit everyone, and people with pets and children especially need somewhere more suitable to live. the problem is, the councils and the developers are just greedy, and this new housing doesnt meet their needs, but of course people still want to live in the area because of it's location to the freeway but what choice do they have in suitable housing when councils and developers have this approach? there needs to be better planning and a middle ground (less greed).

youre also in a unique position where you can afford a city dwelling and a country property, most people cant, how happy would you be with inner city life if you couldnt get away to the country and were stuck in the city all the time? the fact that you have a country get-away sort of implies that you wouldnt be happy, otherwise why would you have the country house to get away from the rat race you think everyone should embrace?

robert it was me that said that paddo etc were terrace houses built on the slum settlements of Sydney - that's because the owners of the land didn't want to give up their little bit of planet Sydney to allow "normal" sized blocks to be aglomerated.

I agree that living in those former slum areas is unique - I had quite a while at Marrickville, but when I shifted to Dicky Beach the last thing I thought would follow me was the tiny blocks of land filled with a house

This is a very interesting debate.I must agree with some of Roberts comments particularly about some outer burbs having the potential to become slums,Australia does seem to follow America in many ways ,and i find it hard to see how this situation in Brisbane will become any different to how Los Angeles has ended up.
I grew up in the U.K. and we certainly had smaller gardens if any,but we didnt know any differently,so it was no big deal.It is inevitable,i believe that the block size must decrease in major metro areas, and more building will be in the up direction.I do not personally want to live in that type of environment,but then again i do not intend to remain in a major metro area.
To sum up,we cannot have everything,we must make a choice do we live in Cities and accept smaller blocks or move to the country areas where we would have less facilities but more land.
These are only my opinions and not meant to cause offence to anyone :)
Long live the power of debate!

Trancegemini,

For a start, I am not at all "assuming everyone wants to live in the city". I do not drink coffee (mind you it is better than the old six o'clock swill). Many folk happily own animals in the inner suburbs as well as myself. My wife and I have two kids that live close by and have lots of friends a stones throw away. We intend to live fulltime in the city eventually as we have in the past. Our bush block is our superannuation (I am actually regenerating a lot of the native bush up there). I do feel guilty going up there and even using all that petrol in the travel. But at least I am recognising the problem.

Living in the inner city can be very pleasant. If you travelled a bit you would understand. I have lived in some truly magnificent well functioning inner city parts of the world.

Now to other comments,

I agree that greed motivates a lot of development. But remember those Macmansions are being snapped up by eager buyers, so there is a demand for them. There is bad development all over cities but how do you legislate for good development? Especially when it seems so many folk in this dicussion are so in favour of more suburban blocks therefore more urban sprawl!

For goodness sake I am not criticising anyone for living on suburban blocks, I am saying there is too much of it! It is out of control! If development like that continues at the rate it is, there will be unpleasant environmental consequences. I thought that was obvious.

I thought this discussion is about the environmental impacts of urban sprawl. Surely we can sensibly discuss the environmental problems of cities and consider their future without turning to a city verses the suburbs arguement! I am quite surprised, I thought gardeners were environmentally aware and sensitive folk.

Think back twenty or thirty years ago to what South east Queensland was like and look at it now then imagine what it will be like in another thirty years from now if the sprawl continues. How far will you have to travel to get to the shops, the hospital the countryside etc? How much is petrol going to cost and will you be able to afford it? How beautiful will it all look then. Go to The USA and look at Miami and Los Angeles because there is your future. It is not pleasant.

It is tragic that the best arable lands in Australia are still being gobbled up at such a rate for more suburban sprawl. Look at where the rains are falling now and where the droughts are. We find continuously the best land and then spread it with suburban blocks. If only we could think outside our own backyard and our own little street and consider the way we want our whole built enviroment to be.

Our kids are going to inherit an environmental mess because we refused to look ahead. Who is being selfish and greedy? Has no one inthis forum read Tim Flannery's book 'The Future Eaters' because that is what this generation is, future eaters.

I do agree with most of what Robert has to say,inner city life in major cities,can be pleasant also,my sister lives in Edinburgh about 1k from absolute heart of the city.The whole issue is basically a lifestyle choice.However as fuel levels run low and prices rise,there will be a lot of people in the outer burbs,with less services .
I have travelled around Europe,and very often there is a trend to "commuter belts" this is basically city workers moving to smaller country towns serviced by public transport and commuting to work.The problem here is though the towns slowly lose their character and evolve into suburbs of that nearby city.The commuters tend not to shop locally/use the local pub etc and as house prices rise the only people who can afford to live there are those working in the city.
Its hard to say exactly what will happen in a city like Brisbane,but given that the public transport is appalling,i dont think the future looks good.
Flannerys book is indeed an interesting read,however it is only one mans opinion no matter how insightful it may appear.
Unfortunately we are a very greedy and destructive race of creatures and while we may like the notion of living "Green",very few actually practice this lifestyle,you only have to look at how many 4WDs and 6 cylinder cars are on the road to see this.Does a mummy in New Farm really need a huge 4WD to pick up her little darlings from school?-i think not.

Hear Hear Robert
I don't think you are saying anything untoward or for that matter untrue. Unfortunately, and most probably in our lifetime, all our fabulous lifestyles will be curtailed.

This could not be such a problem, if only we all realised what ridiculous mess we have made. The urban sprawl problem, seems to be a result of our abundance of space. Europe, with much larger pobulations especially in relation to space leads the world in thinking solutions to the sustainability of their environment. We all have to think about it, or just accept this is the best it will ever be and kiss it goodbye. Either way it's all going to change.

Well this certainly stirred the pot.
There has been some good feedback here but we now need to influence our local pollies.
One thing I see is the discussion on whether we should have large or small blocks. This is a hard call at present because no one can really dictate what you the individual can or cannot have.
On the bright side the Govt here in sunny SE QLD has put a hold on landholders subdividing their land (say a farmer) if it is under 40 acres. Over the last few years this has become very popular by breaking up the farm and retire on the proceeds.
Worst case scenario would depict all arable land taken up for housing and not enough for food production. I suppose this may be a moot point if as NASA research suggests there won't be enough rain to water the farm anyway.

Back to the original thread of this discussion. Has anyone noticed changes to the rainfall patterns in heavily built areas as opposed to adjacent undeveloped areas?
Bear in mind this has to be bigger than your immediate local area. To my mind Brisbane does seem to get more localised storms rather than one storm spread over a large area.
We also see the normal rainfall seems to be much heavier, say 200km either side of Brisbane. This may bear out some of the research NASA has been doing.
I think it is silly to think all our weather problems are greenhouse gas related. There are many factors that influence the weather patterns including natural cycles which can be hundreds of years long.

Finally I cannot agree with the remarks about living in the inner city. These are personal choices and no disrespect to those who like the inner city.
I have lived in a semi rural lifestyle for most of my life and not even a herd of screaming greenies would get me back into the city.

Doug.

If we are going to have large blocks - fine - but no subdivision - the area around those larger blocks wasn't intended to cope with the re-urbanisation.

One place to think about is on the corner of Wright and Anzac in Maroochydore - there was a large queenslander and a corner shop on the large block of land. These are to be knocked down and replaced by 69 "luxurious" appartments. That undoubtedly means at least 69 more cars in that suburban street - next to a primary school and more likely more than a hundred new cars.

The infrastructure just wsn't meant to cope with increases like that, and once this first block of flats is built others will follow.

I mentioned earlier about the loss of amenity from the urban infill programmes, theres also a lack of an integrated urban plan to take into account the amenity of the areas, the infrastructure, etc etc etc.
I bet there won't be any increase in water pressure for the area- so everyone will loose pressure. Ditto with sewerage, so there will be greater chances of backflows

If we are going to have tiny blocks (like the former sydney slums I mentioned earlier) let them be tiny blocks from the outset....don't have greedy individuals spoiling an area by selling off half or a third of their block to cash in.

Urban sprawl kills off viable farmland, but it also kills off viable suburbs