eeded to reduce carbon emissions; global warming also forces us to rethink the way we deal with population growth, urban development, carbon- and energy-intensive construction systems, linear and unsustainable material flows, consumption and urban life in general.
Most cities in the Asia-Pacific region are grappling with the challenges of urbanization and population growth. Alongside the concept of the ‘sustainable city’, the notion of the ‘liveable city’ has gained attention. The ‘sustainable city’ and the ‘liveable city’ are measured differently (for instance, a very energy-efficient city could still be an awful place to live). On the other hand, Australian cities are usually very liveable but not sustainable. So a step-by-step transformation of cities is required to increase their sustainability and peak oil resilience . There is scientific evidence that larger cities use resources more efficiently than smaller cities because of economy of scale; and that denser and well-interconnected cities generate less carbon per person [2,3,4,5,6].
As Australian cities grow inwards and become more compact, the cultural and social acceptance of urban infill and inner-city living becomes an issue. Urban infill and developments on brownfield sites mean cities become denser, so that residents can live in proximity to public transport, mixed-use precincts and their workplaces; it involves people moving from suburbs back to city centres and accepting multi-storey apartment buildings and townhouses. But therefore better models of infill housing are needed to ensure acceptance of inner-city living. An unattractive, overdeveloped example of inner-city apartment living in Sydney is shown in Figure 1.
Our linear economic system and current models of urbanization are based on the notion of continual urban and industrial growth, ever-expanding consumption, disposable products, resource depletion, waste creation and pollution [7,8]. Resources are extracted from the earth, refined, manufactured into parts and assembled into products, which are widely distributed, sold, used, discarded, disposed and replaced. Walker (2006) notes that ‘this system’s flow of resources and energy is linear and unidirectional: most of it is not recyclable, ending up in landfill’ . Repair, re-use, refurbishment and retrieval (recovery) of resources, materials and building components do not yet feature in this system; construction systems that allow 100 percent recyclability, or disassembly and re-use of entire components, would be far better.
Architects and planners are now looking for new, responsible ways of living in cities and better inner-city housing models, to attract people back from suburbs to the centres. It is clear that things are changing and we must make every effort to future-proof the built environment by designing more resilient urban systems and more compact urban housing. The technology for energy generation and supply is transforming quickly, while the construction sector is still working out the ramifications of climate change and possible responses. However, the transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy is moving much faster than most people realize, notes environmentalist Lester Brown (2009) ; while a mostly conservative and therefore slow-to-change construction sector has yet to fully embrace principles of ethical consumption, low carbon construction and waste reduction.
Housing construction is of exceptional significance as a driver of the Australian economy and a fundamental social need. A report by FWPA (2012)  states that ‘the areas of design, material technology and construction process management in housing, have significant potential for improvement through emerging technologies, but to date, the Australian construction industry has been slow to adopt new technologies relative to other advanced countries’.
1.1. Better Inner-City Housing Models for Urban Infill
Australian and North American cities in particular will need to be transformed towards higher densities and a more compact urban form using infill to reduce thei