This was orignally published  in the Crosswire New Matilda blog

to see the original:

Building for healthy cities

There are many environmental and economic reasons why we should limit the physical size of cities, and today I do not intend to go into that. I am assuming that we all think population densities in Australian cities should be increased.

What motivates people to move to near city country areas? Why don’t they take the full risk and move to an area further away than commuting distance from the city? Is it that they are not risk takers, or is that city life is too good to give up completely?

Most people asked to describe their ideal life style, include things like good company, good food and wine, and pleasant surroundings - that which I call “the villa in Tuscany lifestyle” - or they like where they are but there isn’t enough entertainment, life’s too boring. I’ll write about a possible solution for them another day, today I’m going to concentrate on those who want a villa in Tuscany.

I’ve never wanted the villa in Tuscany myself, but can see the attractions. I think it’s possible to have the Tuscan lifestyle and increase population densities at the same time.

Consider the typical Australian inner suburb, where the majority of the dwellings in the street are still houses with largish gardens. Let’s assume that 10 people in that street, living next to each other, decide to do their bit for the environment. They agree that they are going to demolish their house and build an apartment complex. They don’t want to give up what they already have, a nice sized house and garden so they decide on the following plan.

At each end of the 10 house block they build over the complete allotment with apartments, 3 per floor, 4 floors, and a garage underneath. In between all the houses are removed, and replaced with a permaculture orchard and vegetable garden, reed beds for landscaping and greywater treatment. Underground storage tanks for rainwater collection, rooftop electricity generation  panels, solar hot water infrastructure, recycled materials from their previous homes are part of the plan. They’ll have enough land left for play areas too, for children and adults, sandpit in the day, petanque in the evening, or a tennis court, and a barbecue area.  They could even have a dual purpose swimming pool. In the play area, large trees both native and food producing can provide delightful outdoor entertaining, sitting areas, and food and shelter for their non-human neighbours.

The 10 original families would have modern apartments the size of their original houses, and there would be an additional 14 dwellings. Population density would be doubled, but still left with a pleasant lifestyle. The green insfrastructure incorporated as part of the complex will reduce the demand on community infrastructure instead of being a new greenfields cost to the community. The additional population will make existing infrastructure more cost effective.

Enabling this sort of development should be a priority for all tiers of government. States should pass enabling  legislation, local governments declare that only this type of infill will be approved for multi-occupancy dwellings, and federal funding for the building.

And who should build? This is a role appropriate for housing authorities. Their first role would be to organise housing swaps, so that people who would like that lifestyle can group together. The apartments should be built for the cost of building without profit.

 How can the original owners be fairly compensated for what they originally gave up? I don’t think they can, but the trade offs should be made attractive enough to encourage this to happen. Each original owner, gets their apartment at their original rate of equity, plus they get 50% equity in another apartment together with the housing authority, and the remaining 4 belong entirely to the housing authority 100%, to be sold or let out. The whole complex, two apartment buildings and the land in between becomes part of a strata title with each of the 24 dwellings having equity of ownership.

How many baby boomers would choose such an option, especially if they could see that they would be able to help some of their children achieve housing in the process? I know I would. I could live at one end of the street, my offspring and grandchildren could live at the other end of the street, and garden in between.