City planners tend to regard automobile transport as being good for cities. I support Jane Jacobs call for “the attrition of automobiles by cities.” So I would also demote the role of transport and ‘hard infrastructure’ planners in the urbanisation process. They should sit ‘below the salt’, especially on coastal cities.

Qatar is my favourite Gulf state – because of Al Jazeera, which I now prefer to the BBC World Service for international news. It is less Eurocentric and they seem to have a wider range of specialist correspondents who are not professional broadcasters. Also, when I think about the long history of urban design it seems to me that most of the best results are associated with ideas that come from religious authorities or kings and queens. This is regrettable. My hope for the future is that landscape architects can be added to the list. The landscape (green) infrastructure should be planned before the physical infrastructure. Should IFLA give its attention to promoting this point it would justify its continued existence.

A good traffic engineer (ie Arups http://www.arup.com/Services/Infrastructure_Design.aspx ) would most probably assist with developing a comprehensive understanding of current useage and the implications of predictions to 2036 of changes in existing and intended residential and employment patterns.
[ http://www.metroplansydney.nsw.gov.au/Home/MetropolitanPlanForSydney2036.aspx ]

Although it is said that Sydney is walkable (re: distance) in reality parts of the city are not that pleasant to walk in ie. long streets, topography, poorly kept paving surfaces and sometimes merely not that pleasant (aesthetic). The good [ http://www.planeteyetraveler.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/hydepark.jpg ] and the bad [ http://www.sanddollies.com/4f91bf20.jpg ] and the ugly [ http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-05-15/naked-streets-proposed-for-sydney-cbd/1683320 ].

Good urban design combined with consideration of the subway system could (undoubtably) improve this situation.

Perhaps the naked streets idea has some merit? [ http://watoday.drive.com.au/motor-news/naked-streets-considered-for-sydney-20090514-1496t.html ] Or perhaps it would result in both unhappy pedestrians and commuters? It would be useful to understand the similarlities and differences with places where this idea has already been implemented.

It would need a king or dictator to stipulate that CBDs should be high density for aesthetic reasons.
From a traffic standpoint (pun intended) I think the best solution is to plan urbanisation like a snake’s skeleton. The spine should be a rapid transit system and the ribs should be green transport links (walkways, cycleways, solar-powered slow buses etc). In fact the spine could be a utilities corridor which space for: several rail lines, water, sewers, electricity, telecoms, road, cycleway, wildlife corridor etc. If this was done on a generous scale then it would be easy to upgrade the utilities as the urbanisation advanced. Also, there would be great opportunities for relating clusters of buildings to landscape opportunities. I recommend this policy to Chinese urban planners and landscape architects. It relates to Copenhagen’s Finger Plan but pays more attention to landscape, ecology, hydrology and non-mechanised green transport. The 1947 Copenhagen Five Finger Plan, like the London Green Belt plan, treated ‘greenspace’ as an end-in-itself, without giving it aesthetic, ecological or other roles which relate to the urban area which it delimits. The main function of the Copenhagen greenspace is to make a pretty picture.

The history of the settlement of Sydney has left a legacy of a high density CBD and a low density city. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Sydney ] Acess to the high density city (where employment is concentrated from the low density suburbs) and reducing transit times due to overcongested roads and associated pollution is considered to be a difficult issue that Sydney needs to overcome as it continues to grow.
[ http://www.thenewcityjournal.net/sydney_choking_in_its_own_density.htm ] Only New York has comparable commute times, and this is due to the slower public transport system rather than road transit.

[ http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssychan/5140434261/ ]
[ http://www.flickr.com/photos/maapu/2536233332/ ]

For example: [ http://www.cvent.com/en/destination-guide/sydney/images/sydney-skyline.jpg ]
The harbour (blue space) and surrounding parks (green space) are an essential part of the setting of the city.