Melbourne & Australian Architecture Topics

A place to talk about Australian Architecture, Heritage & Planning Issues
It is currently 24 Jun 2017, 21:25




All times are UTC + 10 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: New Australian City
PostPosted: 06 Sep 2011, 16:05 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: 26 Jun 2007, 14:38
Posts: 1298
Location: Melbourne
Just noticed this from 2010...

http://www.theage.com.au/national/austr ... -muho.html

Quote:
Australia 'must plan new city' to cope with population
Yuko Narushima
January 26, 2010

AUSTRALIA should plan for a new city, like a Gold Coast of the west, to cope with the population boom predicted by 2050, demographer Bernard Salt says.
The country has the resources to accommodate a projected 35 million people, but Australians will have to get smarter about where and how they live.
''It will require a significant modification in the way we have settled the country and our lifestyle,'' the KPMG demographer said.

''It might also be appropriate to look for a new city up north, in the same way that in the last 50 years we've created the Gold Coast.''
The rainfall and agriculture of the Pilbara and the Kimberley made it suitable for more intensive development, he said.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd stoked the population debate in the lead-up to Australia Day, warning of a squeeze on the health system as baby boomers aged.
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott also weighed in, questioning the sustainability of increased migration.
Projections for long-term growth should not assume current lifestyles will be maintained, Mr Salt said.
For example, future Australians would probably use more water tanks and solar panels, rely less on cars, and work either from home, or closer to it, ameliorating the strain on resources.
By 2050, the global population is set to grow to 9 billion from about 7 billion today. As a nation of 22 million with the resources of a continent, Australia had a moral imperative to take its share of migrants, Mr Salt said.
''We need to project that we are a generous nation,'' he said. ''You might get away with no growth for the next 10 years, but then those pressures build up.
''The rest of the planet says, 'We're drowning in poverty and here's Australia sitting on 22 million people, and they don't want to accept migrants because it compromises the quality of their lifestyle'.''
Similarly, the University of Adelaide's Graeme Hugo said closing the door on migration was not an option.
''Because of our age structure, we're going to lose 40 per cent of our workforce over the next 15 to 20 years,'' the professor of geography said.
''It's not just a matter of new jobs, it's a matter of replacing people in jobs.''
Professor Hugo said a fresh look at Australia's settlement system was needed to determine if the nation's obsession with the coast was still an economic necessity or a mere continuation of ''a historical accident''.
''Jobs these days are much less determined by a particular location,'' he said. ''We have to look at the technological and environmental situation now.''
The approach of the '70s was to expand regional centres, but with increased mobility and city infrastructure under pressure, a new city was viable. ''Whether it's a new city or development in places less affected by climate change, such as Tasmania, or the northern parts of Australia, all those options have to be on the table,'' he said.




The North of Australia seems like a good place to build in. I think it is very unlikely a new city will be planned however. It is far more likely that places like Darwin and Cairns will become larger. I would be in favour of settling the Kimberly region, obviously in a way that minimized the impact on the native environment. And Darwin could do with a lot more people there, however it would certainly need a lot more infrastructure; wider roads, civic buildings, more open parks, public transport, a rail link that goes into the centre of the city, and drinking fountains because that city is HOT. In the future if Cox Peninsula was developed more, they might even end up with a harbour bridge. The main deterrent seems to be the hot weather without the respite afforded by beaches crawling with gators.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Australian City
PostPosted: 06 Sep 2011, 22:28 
Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 Aug 2011, 08:45
Posts: 113
Location: Latrobe Valley
Apparently the mining boom will go on for decades. Is there any reason that a town in a mining region, such as Karratha, cannot attain a population of a million people? It would require a change of tack from the mining companies though; they currently prefer their workers to be FIFO instead of being permanent residents.

The maturity of such a city and the emergence of new industries as time goes on should counteract a gradual decline in mining activity, if indeed that should occur.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Australian City
PostPosted: 07 Sep 2011, 17:48 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: 12 Jan 2009, 01:16
Posts: 85
It is very difficult to 'build' a city and attract residents. One of the reasons that Sydney keeps growing is that new immigrants arrive there and stay. few migrants move outside the major cities. This has been a big problem in attracting foreign doctors to rural areas. they would rather work in a capital city.

An organisation i used to work for had real problems attracting staff at salaries above 100K in Canberra. We did notice that we were getting many phone calls and applications from Melbourne, from people with great experience but working a few grades lower. Ultimately, an office was opened in Melbourne and the same job performed by people for around 15-20k less per person. people just didnt want to move, so the work was relocated.

i dont know the real reasons mining companies favour FIFO workforces, but i suspect its to do with people wanting the work, but not wanting to move. if we return to 1980's type unemployment levels, the workforce would be more inclined to relocate (not that Id advocate that, as i went through it myself).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Australian City
PostPosted: 07 Sep 2011, 18:52 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2002, 00:36
Posts: 3940
Does anyone remember back in the 80s when they proposed the "Multi Function Polis" (MFP). It started as an idea for a completely new Australian city and they made a big hoopla about this exact same idea. But after a bunch of bickering they started trying to locate it in existing cities like Adelaide and Melbourne - Docklands was even suggested as a possible option.

It was never realistic as the government were looking for Japanese investors to fund it. After much expense, no serious investors could be found the whole idea just fizzled.

Some interesting reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi_Function_Polis

Decentralisation projects like Albury-Wodonga have generally also failed.

Personally I think that creating new states is a solution to kickstart new Australian cities. The reason that Darwin is growing is because it is an administrative centre for the whole of NT. Create some new states with their own economies and legal systems and you'll have USA styled decentralisation and employment.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Australian City
PostPosted: 07 Sep 2011, 20:54 
Offline
Elite Member
Elite Member
User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2010, 00:54
Posts: 631
Location: Essendon
The whole USA thing is a good reason not to create new states.

_________________
“We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.” -T.S Eliot


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Australian City
PostPosted: 07 Sep 2011, 21:30 
Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 Aug 2011, 08:45
Posts: 113
Location: Latrobe Valley
gresswell wrote:
It is very difficult to 'build' a city and attract residents. One of the reasons that Sydney keeps growing is that new immigrants arrive there and stay. few migrants move outside the major cities. This has been a big problem in attracting foreign doctors to rural areas. they would rather work in a capital city.

Cannot agree. I live in a regional area, less than 2 hours from Melbourne, but it is almost impossible to see an 'Aussie' doctor here. Because of that I have formed the opinion that any graduating Australian doctors are simply too yuppie; too prissy to work beyond the tram tacks.
gresswell wrote:
i dont know the real reasons mining companies favour FIFO workforces, but i suspect its to do with people wanting the work, but not wanting to move. if we return to 1980's type unemployment levels, the workforce would be more inclined to relocate (not that Id advocate that, as i went through it myself).

I suspect it has a lot to do with the mining companies keeping their workers feeling as if they are casuals... :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC + 10 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Melbourne Buildings