Urban consolidation and compact-city policies are not novel planning innovations in the Australian context. Debates over urban consolidation have been actively raging since the late 1970s (Bounds
2004). In the international context the ambition to actively pursue the creation of more compact cities was given approval by the UN (Habitat 2001). One of the principal impediments to the adoption of urban consolidation in the Australian context was the cultural imperative of detached housing and owner occupation. For many years urban consolidation, or compact city policies were opposed because they were seen as a deterioration in generally accepted housing standards (Troy1996). Some of the arguments raised contended that increased densities brought about reduced amenity, detracted from the virtues of private open space traditionally enjoyed by Australians and resulted in a declining quality of life generally, and in particular for medium density residents.
By the late 1980s urban consolidation was the centre piece of most metropolitan strategic plans and in spite of localized resistance, local governments were compelled by state authorities to plan for increasing densities. In the Sydney context this was backed by prescriptions for allocated areas of medium density development. Most importantly this legislation underpinned the right of developers to appeal local government refusal of their development plans. For almost a decade some spectacular resistance had been encountered, in particular in gentrifying areas, from local councils and young
City Structures 03
Meso and micro governance in urban consolidation City Structures 03 - 5 professional gentrifiers resisting redevelopment of brown field sites with medium and high density apartments adjacent to relatively aged traditional areas (Bounds 1993). The Court of Appeal now routinely overturned local government resistance as increased development complied with state government policy.