No disrespect intended but I find it distressing that a scientist can state that "Very few people can afford architect designed homes, or the latest in environmentally friendly design."

It's simply not true that good design, whether produced by a person trained in architecture or best practice building design or what's called environmentally sustainable design is by default un-affordable design. Actually, that's a very unscientific statement since re climate change, the whole world can't afford not to use and pay for environmentally friendly design.

Surely it is well established by now that a well designed and sustainable design is overall a far cheaper option to live in than a 'McMansion' putting aside whatever the initial design and build costs are. Savings over the life of such a building in terms of health of the occupants and surrounding community, and the costs of heating and cooling are cheaper than a building that ignores sustainable or ergonomically efficient design. Period.

A small or even large fee for an architect's or designer's services, if a sustainable design is achieved, is a very bearable minor cost when lifetime savings and liveability are accounted for. In terms of overall cost of a building the fee paid for a good designer is very often far less than the total cost of the glazing, the builder or even the electrician.

Further, the idea that there is such a thing as a "latest in environmentally friendly design" is a marketing misnomer as almost everything about sustainable design solutions, bar solar panels, and computer controlled mechanisms, is ancient in origin. All passive solar design predates mechanised airconditioning technology by hundreds if not thousands of years.

I have a small chip on my shoulder about people finding it objectionable and unaffordable to pay a person highly trained to skilfully and artfully provide them with a lifetime and lifestyle saving house design, not to diminish the contribution it makes to alleviating climate change for everyone else. Would paying through the nose for a 'great' car or a fabulous holiday be less objectionable by any chance?

$300,000 for a house with as many sustainable features listed in the brochure is cheap and competitively priced.

I agree with you Dale.

No mention here of the public costs of the separate detached houses or the resource wastage or environmental damage.

No mention here either that it is precisely the distance between the separate detached houses that separates us from any sense of community, that causes us to "retreat more and more into our homes..."

No mention of the unaffordability of housing especially for the younger generation nor of the enormous level of household debt across the community (caused by this great Australian dream) and that any substantial downward movement in property prices will cause a housing crisis. I'm not supportive of units either, especially when they are no more than chicken coops, but housing design should not only relate to its environment it also shouldn't trap its occupants into mortgage debt and eternal maintenance responsibilities.

Why are architects unable to design anything other than a 'family household' when only a third of all households are the traditional family structure. Given that over 20% of households have only one occupant, what about better designs for a collective of individuals that includes private spaces and shared spaces?

Apart from all of that, I had hoped that we were past the idea that your character is represented by the character of your home.

Unfortunately, where I live housing is also changing from functional seaside to atomised existence for holiday makers who bring from their city abodes the same visual barriers to community and actual engagement with the locals ( people, flora and fuana). These holiday houses serve one main function aesthetically, to brand your economic and social representation of character.

I too use the term McMansion disparagingly but thus is another form of cultural elitism. Am I jealous of the outdoor kitchens, well-designed internal storage spaces, and clean interior lines...you betcha, but I also justify my choice of modest abode by telling myself I am not contributing to urban sprawl and am trying to create a garden that blends into our native landscape...yeah sure. Even I can't identify what would be a contemporary Australian aesthetic without financial resourcing for architectural and landscaping advice....very much the preserve of my visitor householder neighbours.

Agree also the notion of family home must change along with changing demographics.

I disagree that "it is precisely the distance between the separate detached houses that separates us from any sense of community". I've lived in Brisbane for decades, and had nothing to do with my close neighbours, often driving right across town to see friends. I have twice lived in the country where houses are sufficiently far apart that you don't even know if the neighbours are home, and yet the feeling of community is far stronger here. Maybe it's the commitment shown when neighbours have to walk 200m to share a coffee and a chat!

"Fundamentally, I would question why there has to be more and more houses."
Dale, where do you suggest we house a growing population? The Baby Boomer era has created an enormous challenge which politically hasn't been addressed in more ways than one. The era saw unprecedented wealth, larger homes and massive spending. It's a done deal and cannot be undone. This will now result in a larger number of single person dwellings in the next fifteen years as those Australians reach retirement and the statistics reflect this. When this era is gone, we may well have a glut of McMansions going cheap (2045?) and housing affordability will be revised again! And undoubtedly this is already happening.
I personally don't believe Councils are going bankrupt because of infrastructure costs. Look towards mismanagement, spending money that yet has to be earned (like typical householders who value the plastic card and have created massive debt.

I enjoyed reading this historical account by Peter McNeil which has enough strands to keep us chatting for months!

You stole my thunder, Stephen. I simply cannot understand why anyone would want to live in a free-standing house sans room to play outside, devoid of of shade either trees or eaves (eaves actually do more than just provide shelter from the rain while scrabbling for keys; they help to protect the house).

No place for pets, not even room to grow a few tomatoes - even in pots one requires a sunny area to place them.

And the cleaning of these enormous homes - not all occupants can afford cleaners, surely?

If people don't want to relate to the environment why not just live in a well appointed flat?

And the final insult many of these houses are built on what used to be arable farmland.

McMansions: insult to injury!

We built our place on arable farmland....... but we farm it! Sort of..... on our 6,700m2 block, we grow most of our food and even raise goats for milk and dairy products. It's all done organically using permaculture principles.

I don't know how anyone can live without a garden.......
http://damnthematrix.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/finally-zone-1-under-control/

On gardens: In some cities, a garden is not terribly practical when you take into account the water it uses, and how short on water we are. You can argue that we could plant native plants, but they often look sparse, are expensive, and are surprisingly difficult to keep alive. I work full time so I just don't have enough time to care for fussy plants. Then there are Japanese style stone gardens, but on a 40 degree day is that really what you want?!

I dream of a small cottage garden with lawn and lots of flowers, but my climate will not allow it unless I am willing to break all the water use regulations.

So I have opted for a house with two small courtyards, and pot plants instead.

It doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer a large garden, just that a large garden isn't practical.

However, I don't live in a McMansion, and if I could afford one of those, I would probably build a smaller house and spend the money I saved on hiring a landscaper to help me design a practical, attractive garden.

Your comments on community are also interesting. I am from the country, and living on a farm half an hour from town, I had a far greater sense of community (and still do when I visit my family there) than I have found anywhere in the city. I do miss it terribly. City living just doesn't seem conducive to community.

I currently live in a small complex of terrace houses that has a fairly good community feel (for the city), but a neighbour commented to me the other day that "it's nice to know your neighbours, but obviously you don't want to get too close." I didn't know what to say - I would love to be as friendly with my neighbours as I am with my close friends! It would be wonderful!

I sit out the front of my house, and I'm the only one.

Interesting. In Melbourne, you can tell the home owners are Greek or Italian if they're sitting in their garage.

Houses built on slabs are usually much cooler than ones raised on stumps. To keep a house cool in Summer and warm in Winter, you need INTERNAL thermal mass..... which is where McMansions have it all wrong with all their bricks on the outside. They don't build ovens out of bricks for nothing.

To build a low carbon footprint house requires a whole chain of events to occur: siting, shape, glazing size, eaves, etc etc... http://damnthematrix.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/mon-abri/

If you don't want your house to flood........ don't build on a flood plain!!

"One of the sad things I see in modern housing is the older couple who keep their family home long after the family is gone."

This really makes me angry. Why on earth do people think it is acceptable to group all "old people" into one size fits all, small units. Just because you don't have young children, you're not supposed to want some space and privacy around you. You're "selfish" for wanting to stay in the house you and your partner have spent decades making into a home. You're not expected to need space for the hobbies that fill your time now you're retired. (growing roses needs a garden, sewing is nicer in a dedicated room that used to be the kids bedroom).

Just what do you, in your wisdom, deem a "suitably sized" house for an older couple?

I'm sorry to sound so aggressive, but this suggestion is being raised more and more often these days. Have a look at some British media articles on this subject. Several government members are espousing the forced use of "spare bedrooms" in empty nester houses.

As one half of a retired couple who have worked very hard all our lives and saved hard, we can afford to keep the family home and we will. I get very angry when people say that we "should" be downsizing and proving our "family home" to somebody with a young family and squashing ourselves in a one bedroom unit with no garden and no space to do anything except wait to die.

I was looking at some interesting designs from overseas and the housing developments seem much better planned. Houses in a huge circle with open space in the middle to allow for car-free playing and activities. Houses face inwards and access by car is from the road at the rear. Seemed to be a much more friendly atmosphere than our street on street developments. Several of these circular developments were placed near sporting and activity areas/buildings as well as a small shopping centre and services.

The type of development you are describing John, would be wonderful. I would love to see the focus shift from cars to people, we have moved very far from having liveable suburbs.

I wonder if our housing developments will be redesigned when we no longer have access to cheap fuel and cheap cars?

Hi Judith,
I reckon you'd find the concept of Village Towns (http://villagetowns.net/en/) to be very interesting. Have a look through the website. I've read all the books but have decided that actually finding/building such a place is unlikely to happen. That said, if such a development was to actually go ahead in Australia, I'd seriously consider being part of it.

Hi Judith

in a perfect world this would have already happening. Particularly in the enlightened 21st century.

Unfortunately its too easy to opt for the quick buck, and not really think too much about the concept of architecture vis a vis human interaction and practicality.

As we lost the corner shop, so people now have to drive a ways to the supermarket. Although I suppose we can order online and have stuff delivered. But then that just perpetrates the isolation that has been commented upon herein.

It seems to me utterly unfathomable that architects, builders, state and local planners etc could not in this day and age come up with a better solution to modern living than the urban sprawls we see everywhere.

And now here in Victoria there is talk that the Minister for Planning & Environment (an oxymoron I believe) is willing to sacrifice green wedge land around Melbourne to the altar of development.

Hi Stephen, I almost missed your reply, please use the reply button at the bottom of the posts, this means that I will get an alert when you reply. Your posts are always informative and interesting, and I would hate to miss them :)

The points you raised baffle me also. Perhaps we need more imaginative planners, and less greedy developers, and a complete rethink about how we want to live. We, as the buyers of housing, seem to just accept what we are given to buy, without really questioning how it could be different.

Recently I visited Perth, and I was shocked by the sheer amount of new housing estates that have eaten the countryside away, along the west coast of Western Australia. There seems little thought has gone into these developments, just km after km of poorly designed houses, (black roofs for goodness sake, in this climate), and it scares me the amount of energy and water that these housing estates will require to be even a tiny bit functional. None of these houses have solar panels, none have rainwater tanks, and very few have gardens. Where and when will it end? I wonder.

Hi Judith

Living in Torquay as I do, I have already mentioned in this forum the Sands Resort development.
When I was a kid I used to ride my bike out towards Barwon Heads. The population of Torquay was about 1,200 (now just over 15,000).

Anyway on these rides I would pass an area that was a wetland and home to birds such as pelicans etc. That area is now The Sands development.

And again I say that in Victoria we have little solace that our planning minister will offer inspiration
and leadership in the area o fsustainable development and architecture.

Also between Geelong and Torquay there has already started a development under the umbrella name of Armstrong Creek. 30,00 - 40,000 homes are planned over the coming years. If you allow 4 people per house thats well over 1000,000.

I know people have to live somewhere and it always easy to criticise from the comfort of our keyboard.....BUT.

Hi Stephen, I know the area your talking about quite well, as I have relatives in Point Lonsdale. I can't believe the changes that have happened to the area. I remember when Geelong seemed such a long way from Melbourne, but it seems as though it is wall to wall housing developments now. We are creating urban deserts.

The same thing is happening along the South West Coast of Western Australia, so many environmental issues, loss of habitat for native animals being just one. There is a monumental disaster with canal developments, that are affecting the fisheries as well as destroying the land based ecosystems.

All to serve the mighty dollar. Very sad.

Now I can't stop commenting - I'll blame you Judith.

Another curious thing is the way people build on food plains and can't understand why their houses go under.

Even more curiouser (!) is the fact that builders are allowed to develop these areas, and sell to unsuspecting buyers. Something is amiss somewhere.

It is only natural that as cities develop further into the hinterland, there will be any number of old river beds, creeks, wetland areas and flood plains. But the urban sprawls dont seem to take these features into account. Thus heartbreak for many families - particularly if the y have no insurance.

Judith and Stephen

Just a quick note to tell you how much I am enjoying your comments and (being Victorian) know only too well of the areas of which you speak.

Neo-libertarians will argue that people are simply using their 'right to choose' as if there exists a plethora of choice.

Not all of us can afford to engage an architect as much as we would like. Nor are we all educated in ideal positioning of a home on its site, let alone environmentally necessary design that includes eaves, verandahs, shade plants, collection of rainwater {not only into tanks but which can also be directed to water gardens - love ag-pipes - a good garden designer or landscape architect can plan for a garden that can self-sustain) and planning that excludes building on flood plains, vital farmland but includes which supportive infrastructure.

Hi Dianna

thanks.

As a teenager i would draw house plans in the back of my school exercise books.
I would loved to have been an architect, but I was lousy at maths - probably because I was too busy drawing my dream houses.

Hi Dianna, Not all of us can afford to engage an architect, that's for sure, but we can make informed decisions by educating ourselves.

I have recently bought an ex-housing commission house, in a suburb where there is still a human feel, as I described in one of my posts above.

One of the things that convinced me to purchase this house, rather than build new, was the design was very energy efficient. The house is tiny compared to what is built today, but far more practical, particularly as there are only two people living in it.

The price was also very low, so we were able to put up solar panels and increase the energy efficiency even more. Many of these older houses already have rainwater tanks.

The block of land is also very large, as was the norm when these houses were built, so lots of room for gardens.

In the days these houses were built, there was more emphasis on planning a community, with services and businesses close by, rather than just building housing estates.

That's excellent. There is so much we can do with existing homes rather than wasteful tearing down.

You have clearly put a lot of thought into your home.

When selecting mine I had certain criteria, hence I ended up with my "tree-house" - a small 3 bedroom home of western red cedar on block of sloping land much larger than the home. My home began life as single room shack with a brick chimney, the chimney was subsequently built around and added to, resulting in the thermal quality of a central solid form for heat or cooler air to disperse through the home. It has a wide verandah overlooking a valley of trees - other homes are difficult to see as most houses here, like mine, blend with the landscape rather than dominate.

This home cools quickly after a summer heatwave and warms cosily in winter. It is not 'pretty' or glamorous but is highly functional and everyone who has ever been here comments on the ambience - it is a place to feel at rest. Where I sit now is the 3rd bedroom which looks out to the front (which faces south) I can look out to massive tree-ferns and a Grevillea robusta and always there will be something to see - wrens chasing off wattle birds, cockatoos landing in squadrons (they have never forgotten that years ago in my naivety I would leave seeds for the King Parrots). I have spent lazy afternoons lying in the grass watching echidnas snuffle through leaf litter.

This is a place for life, children and other animals.