> All good and well, but land releases have not kept up with demand
This point I've heard too often and it's one I vehemently disagree with.
Australians need to get over this quarter acre with a 250sqm house nonsense. What's more the government should stop subsidizing it to the degree that they are. It's not simply a question of land but all the infrastructure that goes along with it: water, power, roads, schools, etc.
There is no God-given right to build out rather than up.
I've heard your argument too. It's been the guiding thought behind slow land release -- that it will lead to higher density. That and the fact that it expands stamp duty receipts.
But that overlooks the fact that overly complex zoning laws, NIMBYist resistance from residents and the odd spot of outright corruption has basically prevented density from increasing.
Density has its costs too. It's cheaper to extend a sewerage and water network in a greenfield project than it is to dig up and replace it in a densely settled area. It's cheaper to maintain small streets than large streets.
As far as stamp duty goes, IMHO that system needs to be abolished. Property taxes should be applied smoothly rather than transactionally. For one thing, stamp duty reduces the flexibility of the labour market.
Consider: someone owns a house in Sydney worth $1 million. They're offered a job in Perth for, say, $150,000. Now to sell up and buy a new house in Perth they'd need to pay $50,000+ in stamp duty before you even get into agents commissions and whatnot. Why should someone take such a huge initial hit? Unless they didn't have a job where they are or the new job was substantially better, they're best off not moving.
You're right that the carbon footprint is lower, but that doesn't change the fact that the collision of politics and economics has prevent urban density from increasing in Australia. We need both to release land and increase density or will are beggaring ourselves unnecessarily.
As for stamp duty, the states rely on it too much to give it up.
Urban density has been increasing markedly in Australia over the past few decades, at least in Sydney. Not quite as fast as some folks would like (ie everybody with a spare quarter acre that they'd rather put up twenty units on) but density is certainly going up.
In my opinion, though, what Australia really needs to do is to develop the infrastructure outside the major cities to persuade people to move out there. Australia can easily accommodate another ten million people, but not if they all want to live in Sydney and Melbourne. Why can't Broome and Mildura and Wagga Wagga have two hundred thousand people?
Generalising enormously, the capital cities are already perched in the best locations. A successful city needs two major things: ready access to water and ready access to trade. That's why most major cities are on rivers or around major harbours.
Take my home town Darwin, for example. It is not destined to be one of the world's great cities because it is poorly positioned. There's buckets of water but due to the flatness of the country it's hard to dam. The harbour is large but shallow. The approaches from East and West are not friendly to bulk shipping.
Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth are already hogging the best spots for large cities.
This type of thinking doesn't explain Houston, Las Vegas, Phoenix - the list goes on. These are large cities by Australian standards but fit very few of your criteria. Las Vegas depends on the Hoover Dam, but certainly not trade or shipping.
Water supply is the major issue in Australian cities, but this can be solved (see Kalgoorlie) if people put their mind to it. I agree that Australia needs to develop the regional areas more.
Houston is actually the 2nd biggest port in the USA and 6th biggest in the world. It's also surrounded by oil and natural gas. Phoenix and Vegas are weird ones, but most large cities in the USA are on a big lake, river or ocean, or some combination of those.
My bad with Houston. I must have been thinking of Dallas.
The factor with Las Vegas and Phoenix are that they are modern growth cities. You don't need a deepwater port to facilitate growth in a modern city, just a good airport, good road/rail links and good communications infrastructure. You could argue that Phoenix is propelled by retirees and golf players and Las Vegas by gambling - but the reason doesn't matter, just the fact that a city can be sustained does.
My understanding is that Vegas is on a major highway and has a natural trade (gambling). Other Nevada gambling towns which are not on that route are less successful. Is that correct?
To cover myself, refer again to my prefatory remark that I was generalising enormously.
This is more up to councils and state governments, and there is movement in this direction, encouraging high to medium density housing rather than low density.
This point I've heard too often and it's one I vehemently disagree with.
Australians need to get over this quarter acre with a 250sqm house nonsense. What's more the government should stop subsidizing it to the degree that they are. It's not simply a question of land but all the infrastructure that goes along with it: water, power, roads, schools, etc.
There is no God-given right to build out rather than up.