Sydneysiders are in danger of scuppering their city’s chances of becoming a more dynamic, vibrant and enjoyable place to live by refusing to take part in a sensible conversation about its future, it’s been claimed.

By reacting in a kneejerk way every time the subject of increasing density is raised, they’re instead doing themselves out of the opportunity to ensure that it’s done well to achieve the best outcomes for all.

That’s the view of a controversial new paper about to be released by the Committee For Sydney who see it as firing the first salvo in the battle for an open conversation about the benefits of Sydney going up – rather than sprawling further out.

“There are huge benefits to density done well, including walkability to places you want to go and being closer to work, family, transport, schools, shops and other amenities,” said the Committee’s head of strategy, Eamon Waterford. “But when you raise the subject in the community, it’s always, ‘So you want to bring in more people? Get stuffed!’ – or usually worse.

“It’s a real conundrum. People vote with their wallets to live in denser areas like Paddington or Potts Point, but then they say they don’t want it to happen elsewhere.”

The Committee for Sydney is an independent think tank focussing on the future of Sydney, whose membership includes major companies, universities, not-for-profits, local government and state government departments and the major cultural, sporting and marketing bodies.

But the committee faces implacable opposition from some quarters. Save Our Suburbs president Tony Recsei, for instance, has resolved to do everything he can to halt density.

“People might say they like high density, but when it’s suggested near them, they all scream and join action groups,” he said. “The reality is, nobody wants it. Living in a small box in the sky is not the best way to live.

“It leads to more myopia in kids who are couped up staring at screens indoors, unable to go outside, more depression, schizophrenia and mental illness … And Australia isn’t short of land. We have a very small population and only 2 per cent of Australia is urbanised.”

Others are, however, eager to pitch in. NSW Minister for Planning Rob Stokes said the paper, Making Great Places; Density Done Well, would be an important contribution to Sydney’s future direction. “It’s time that Sydney had a discussion about density – and how we can all make it work for us, our families and our communities,” he said.

“This discussion paper starts one of the big conversations Sydney needs to have. Sydney is growing, and matching this growth with amenity is vital to our city’s ongoing success.”

City planner, economist and urban policy expert Professor Sue Holliday of the University of NSW said the word “density” immediately triggers alarm, with people fearing being overshadowed by tall buildings, having their roads choked by extra traffic and having to live with more people.

“Density is the only way to go in terms of the growth of Sydney, especially since we’re looking at a doubling of the population by 2050,” she said. “Sprawl has always been bad. Pushing people to the edges of Sydney where some end up spending 30 per cent of their income to drive to work isn’t sustainable.

“Density means better locations closer to transport, work and amenities. We need to build on our existing cities and enhance them. The word ‘density’ has so many negative connotations, we need to be talking instead about ‘reshaping, renewing and regenerating’ our cities.”

The committee’s paper – to be released tomorrow – cites examples of good density done well around the world, such as New York, Paris, Venice and Barcelona, and in Sydney itself, such as Paddington, Manly Corso and Randwick’s The Spot.

“The choice today isn’t between density and sprawl; it’s the choice between good and bad urban density,” said Waterford. “It’s not about whether to densify, but how.

“This shouldn’t be a cause of anxiety, Density done well means that in growing our population significantly over the next generation, we can make Sydney a city of great places with strong amenity, productivity and vibrancy. Or will we struggle to create good places due to community skepticism and siloed government planning?”

The committee says density done well includes priorities like walkable streets, as in Potts Point, mixed use and fine grain neighbourhoods like Newtown, a variety of styles like Paddington, connectivity and infrastructure as in Parramatta, and a diversity of people such as in Surry Hills.

It will be looking also at planning controls and ways in which the NSW Government and developers can work together to ensure good quality density, and plans a series of events and speeches across Sydney.

Committee CEO Dr Tim Williams said Sydney has a simultaneous soaring demand for denser housing, along with a lack of community confidence that the outcome will be pleasant, liveable and well connected communities.

“While there are a number of emerging examples of success across Greater Sydney, we need to give people confidence that a dense urban form matched with increased amenity for residents is not only achievable, but highly desirable,” he said.