ABSTRACT
Advocates of the compact city claim that intensifying urban areas would lead to safer, more vibrant urban areas, support for local businesses and services, and greater social equity. Many of these arguments were put forward in Part 1, but there is little empirical research to support them. Troy investigates some of the social issues and provides counter-arguments to the commonly claimed benefits. He contends that, in the Australian context, compacting or consolidation would take away from the egalitarian nature of traditional housing, and from the freedoms to pursue family and community life that currently exist. Both Smyth and Troy believe that the less well-off would suffer if the compact city became a reality.
