I know this isn't relevant but I only read it last night and thought it a bit amazing. Dublin only has one high rise building higher than 3 stories - it's 5 stories and being pulled down.

Francis,
This is Elizabeth Farrelly in the Sydney Morning Herald describing how development works in Sydney. She says that the political thinking of the Frank Sartor, the state Minister, two years ago when the CUB process was rebooted after the mayoral elections,would have been along the following lines:

"this site is way too lucrative for you local government pissants, so the state will annexe it to Redfern-Waterloo, though it is patently not Redfern-Waterloo, so we can exact developer levies under the ever-flexible Redfern-Waterloo Authority Act. To placate the developer, a major party contributor, we must of course raise heights and densities well past what is reasonable, while loosening energy-saving targets for those same, high-energy developments. You understand. It's simple dollar arithmetic."

makes sense doesn't it.

A quick google shows my info above is wrong. I thought I should correct it before it becomes a net reference. There are at least 12 buildings of between 12 and 26 floors height in Dublin. Still it's not far wrong:

DEGW's John Worthington, author of Managing Intensification and Change - A Strategy for Dublin Building Height, made a number of points about high rise cities which appear to have been taken on board by the powers that be. "High rise" and "tall buildings" are relative terms, he says. "In a city quarter of predominantly one or two-storey buildings, those of three to five floors could be considered of significant height." DEGW identified four key heights: low-rise (up to five floors or 15 metres); mid rise "groundscrapers" (up to 15 floors or 50 metres); high-rise "skyscrapers" (up to 40 floors or 150 metres) and super high-rise (above 150 metres).

Melbourne has 654 high rise according to the same source.