Here's a better way. You pass a ton of complicated regulations about character, heritage, envoronment, zoning, etc and whenever some home-owner, proprieter, small property-owner or small property developer wants to so much as widen his driveway or add some stairs, you make him apply for an expensive and lengthy Council approval, which is likely to be denied or subsequently appealed against by an "action group" of concerned residents on his street.

But when some big developer wants to build, say, an ugly big shopping centre smack in the centre of a suburb, covering several entire blocks and cutting off entire areas of the suburb from one another, you let it go ahead - and even let them deviate from the approved submission with impunity. Don't worry - Council members will have financial incentives to allow this. When people complain, the councillor of their ward throws up his hands and says "I did my best, but I couldn't stop it".

Of course, your "action groups" would have to protest big developments as well, but - ha ha - so what? Yes, and? The property belongs to them, right? There is no reason why the Council has to listen to an action group. It just will when it wants to. It can pretend that it can't.

The council can also contract big developers to build ugly, characterless public projects of it's own. The big develpers ad constructin companies get all the government contracts, because most government projects are large-scale. Another competitive advantage for big companies. Notice how all the government projects are as characterless as the big private developments? They follow the same ugly fashion. But they slap a restraint on any home-owner who wants to put new tiles on his roof or paint his house a non-heritage colour.

Also, if a big developer you know wants some smaller competitor out of the way or wants to buy his land cheaply, you just freeze the small guy's property with one or more of your regulations so that he has to sell it and the market value is reduced. When the big developer grabs it, the "benefit to the surrounding community" of the use he wants to put it to outweighs character, heritage and environment considerations, or suddenly there is no longer character, heritage or environment consideration - it depends on who you hire to appraise the proposal and tick the boxes. It's not your fault that opinions vary between architects and planners.

How does this make Brisbane greener? Well, it gives big developers and other big busineses a competitive advantage over smaller ones, shoving them out of the market so that the developers can destroy even more environment and character wherever they want - purely for profits. Owning one's own house becomes so pointless (effectively one doesn't own it) that those apartment units start to look good. You sell your home to a waiting developer and move into one of his units, making way for more. Smaller businesses become so bogged down in regulations that business becomes impossible, while those "important bigger players" get all the breaks and compete them out of the market. These bigger businesses are capable of doing damage to character, environment and community on a bigger scale and in practice aren't restrained by rules.

Wait a minute...

"Government is not eloquence, is not reason. It is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

- George Washington, first president of the United States.

I do see. But what about the many "character" and "heritage" buildings your "action groups" are always and everywhere campaigning to defend? Most of them would have to be demolished if we are to change to high-density living with green spaces? Particularly the old houses, which are numerous all over Brisbane.

Higher density living might make public and active transport more bearable, but it won't make it viable. They are inherently inconvenient. They involve compromises which are inherent in communal (shared) services rather (as opposed to individual ones - in ths case cars). They are the unavoidable trade-offs of having vehicles with a large number of seats. You don't have individual freedoms and convenience of travel. Space is restricted, trips are longer (less direct) and there must be more walking for each person. Walking is not a joy when you need to carry a lot.

People say that building society around public and active transport will make them viable. They say that cars are only more convenient now because society has been built around them. I say that society was built around cars because they are inherently more viable - because they allow individual freedom of movement. Trains and buses were never meant to be used by everyone, they are merely for people who don't have cars or can't drive one. Or situations in which a car is unnecessary, such as commuting to work when you live and work near enough to stops at each end.

When you drop an ice-cream cone into a cow pat, it ruins the ice-cream and doesn't improve the cow pat. Similarly, building society around public and active transport does not make public and active transport convenient, it just inconveniences society.

BTW, a piece of the jig-saw you left out is "public-private partnerships" between the government and large corporations, which would be necessary for buidling all of this new government-planned and/or -owned infrastrcture, and providing all the necessary services and administration.

"Government is not eloquence, is not reason. It is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

- George Washington, first president of the United States.