r car dependency, high greenhouse gas emissions and land consumption [1,3]. Unsustainable ‘functional city’ models evolved during the automobile era, in a time of cheap fossil fuels. Today, the ratio of parks to parking lots has become a solid indicator of the liveability of a city—an indication of whether the city is designed for people or for cars. While cars promise mobility (and in a largely rural setting they can provide it), there is now an inherent conflict between automobiles and the liveability of a city . Increasing travel costs (due to rising oil prices) will have the most effect on people living in outer suburbs, especially the elderly who often live isolated in suburban areas without efficient public transport. Worldwide, planners are reconsidering the urban role of automobiles and redesigning inner-city communities so that public transportation is the centrepiece of mobility and streets are more pedestrian and bicycle friendly. Good examples of such green districts with compact urban form and mix of housing types, developed as urban infill on brownfield sites, are Vauban-Freiburg (Germany), Hammarby-Stockholm (Sweden) and Malmo Waterfront (Sweden), and the urban revitalization of Berlin and Barcelona.
In Australia we urgently need better, more liveable and affordable models of inner-city housing as urban infill on brownfield sites [13,14]. If this were combined with low-carbon prefabricated construction systems, developers could deliver infill developments more rapidly and affordable, without unpleasant noise for neighbours. The lack of storage space for construction components and materials on inner-city sites would not matter, as prefabricated elements would be produced off-site and delivered to sites just in time for assembly.
The other emerging topic is behaviour change. Our values and behaviours define the way we aspire to live. Changing behaviour in regard to inner-city living and consumption patterns is likely to deliver significant improvements, helping to curb the threat of environmental degradation and global warming [15,16,17].
Most people make careful decisions before committing large sums of money to housing. However, understanding why consumers make decisions requires research and the collection of qualitative data. Major demographic shifts are underway, specifically a growth in smaller households and an ageing population, leading to particular housing needs. As a consequence, there are significant changes happening in the way we will live, and imagine ourselves living. For instance, the Grattan Institute’s recent report The Housing We Would Choose (2011)  found that the importance of living with a garden and backyard has recently slipped from second to 23rd place, while living close to work and access to public transport are now most important for Australians. Other recent research by the Grattan Institute on Australians’ housing preferences has shown that a desirable inner-city location has now the most influence on residential choices, while experiencing a sense of community has grown in importance.
Thus urban densification and infill housing have become established features of modern urban design policy in Australia . Furthermore, the Grattan Institute report (2011)  reveals that Australians would like to be able to choose between a much more varied mixes of housing types than currently provided. The lack of affordable inner-city housing in buildings higher than 4 storeys was frequently mentioned as an issue.
Maliene and Malys  have proposed a model to aid sustainable housing developments in the UK based on characteristics of availability, accessibility, quality, economy, ecology, comfort and security. To be viable, an affordable and sustainable housing model must also be socially acceptable to both consumers and surrounding communities . The shortage of affordable housing in Australian cities has emerged as a major concern. Housing has environmental impacts as well as economic implications and social dimensions. Sustainable housing tends to be unaffordable because of the dual costs of mak