Abstract: Global commitments to make urban areas more sustainable coincide with debate over the type of urban form required to achieve this outcome. Much of the debate centres on the merit of broadly increasing residential densities across the metropolitan area in the name of sustainability. I argue that the focus on density in such debates is problematic. My recently completed PhD thesis explains that urban density calculations are an inaccurate proxy for representing urban structure and form differences across large metropolitan areas like Sydney. Describing urban structure and form as either high or low density tells us little about its location, accessibility and design characteristics. The focus on density in urban research has contributed to an unsophisticated policy response of poorly located and designed high-rise (and detached dwelling) development across the metropolitan area. To more accurately compare the sustainability credentials of different urban structure and form types, my research project adopts a typology approach to representing urban structure and form difference, using Sydney as a case study. Although such an approach has implications for quantifying urban structure and form’s influence on a variety of sustainability data variables (including transport mode choice, energy consumption and water consumption) my thesis argues that the use of density measures flaws urban research regardless of the methodology chosen to quantify statistical relationships. My presentation will detail the alternative urban structure and form typology adopted for our research project and explain why statistical tests that encapsulate categorical urban structure and form variables, like those developed in our typology, are appropriate within an urban planning framework.