So Much For High Rise/High density - proven bad for the environment

From the ACT government's report on carrying capacity and footprint. See pp. 33-34 at  http://www.parliament.act.gov.au/downloads/reports/CCEW06%20Ecological.pdf

The ISA 2007 study and the Australian Conservation Foundation Atlas clearly show that, in each state and territory, the population in the centre and inner suburbs of the capital city are contributing the most per person to the ecological footprint.77 For instance, within Canberra the ecological footprints of the householders of the inner suburbs of Braddon [Mark's comment: medium density] and Yarralumla [big old houses and gardens, embassies]  were 8.59 gha pp and 8.05 gha pp, respectively, and the outer areas of Tuggeranong and Banks were 6.15 gha pp and 6.07 gha pp, respectively.78

78 ibid. Similarly, Melbourne’s inner suburbs of Southbank-Docklands and Yarra-Richmond were 8.19 gha pp and 7.32 gha pp respectively and the outer areas of Broadmeadows and Cardinia-South Melbourne were 5.61 gha pp and 5.57 gha pp, respectively.
79 ISA (2010) The 2008-09 Ecological Footprint of the Population of the Australian Capital Territory – report for the Office of the ACT Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment, p.19.
80 See, for example, USA EPA (2006) Environmental Footprints and Costs of Coat-Based