As proponents of urban consolidation and consolidated living continue to manifest in our society, we must ensure that our acknowledgment of its benefits, and the problems of its agitator (sprawl), do not hinder our caution over its continually changing objectives.

Like much urban policy, the potential benefits that urban consolidation and the urban village concept seek to offer are substantially undermined by ambiguous definition. This ambiguity, as expressed through a general lack of inter-governmental and inter-professional cohesion on this policy, can best be understood in terms of individual motives (AIUSH,1991).

? State Government's participatory role in the reduction of infrastructure spending.

? Urban Professional's recognition of the increased variability, robustness, and interest in both the urban area and their work.

? Conservation Activist's commendation of the lower consumption of resources, and reduced pressure on sensitive environment areas, suggestive of a reduction in urban sprawl.

? The Development Industry's equations of profit established through better and higher levels of land use.

Essentially urban consolidation propo

Cost benefits deemed to be provided by higher-density living, in terms of more efficient use of infrastructure, are realized primarily in the private sectors (Troy,1998). A result inconclusive to State government objectives towards reduced public spending.

Traffic reduction as an expressed direct result of higher-density residential living is largely incorrect. A falsehood achieved by using density as a substitute for sociological variables such as income, household size, and lifestyle characteristics (Moriarty,1996). Traffic reduction stems primarily from a decision to drive (Engwight,1992), a contributing factor not easily adjustable by urban planning alone.

Critical design failure arises from superficial viewpoints on such fundamentals as neighbourhood and community (Mack,1977). In such the built form dubiously grounds itself on place making, removed from the reality that people are the essential component of the place (Westwood,1997).

Stevenson, D. (1999), Agendas in Place: Urban and Cultural Planning for Cities and Regions, Rural Social and Economic Research Centre: entral Queensland University Press.

Petrulis, P. & Brock, A. (1998), Government, Business & Society (2nd ed.), Sydney: Prentice Hall of Australia Pty Ltd.

Some common words found in the essay are:
Solutions Themselves, RCC1998 Government, AIUSH1991 Critical, Mack1977 Practical, Stevenson1999 Regardless, Stretton1975 Suburbia, Roseth1991 Furthermore, Options Action, Australia June, Alexander1998 Policy, architecture australia, urban consolidation, june 1977 pages, 1977 pages, june 1977, australia june 1977, architecture australia june, urban policy, australia june, urban policy research, policy research, public transport, urban sprawl, public consultation, policy research vol,
Approximate Word count = 2666
Approximate Pages = 11 (250 words per page double spaced)