Looking at the Sydney Morning Herald on this Australia Day, I came across an article to my liking. Sure, I didn’t mind reading some of the gushing spiels and navel-gazing diatribes on the great Southern Land on this most special of special days for Australians. But, I was glad to see some people addressing an issue that has seemingly been given little attention despite the relative surge in Australia’s population over the past 10 years mainly due immigration and to a lesser, yet significant extent, natural increase.
That issue is decentralisation and the article is based on rational, logical, intelligent and thoughtful analysis by experts in the fields of demography and geography, Bernard Salt and Graeme Hugo. Demographer Bernard Salt makes the claim that Australia should consider building a planned city(/ies) to take in the growth that is expected to continue in Australia, and looks towards the relatively under-populated Kimberley and Pilbara regions of Western Australia as an areas with sufficient rainfall and agriculture to be able to accommodate greater numbers of residents in the future.
Salt states that improvements in renewable energy resources and other technologies along with changes in the current usages of cars and an increase of individuals working from home would help make decentralisation a more viable option than is perhaps considered today, given its relative inattention. Salt also makes the claim that Australia cannot just turn off the tap of immigration as with our aging population and greater numbers of individuals preparing to leave the workforce than enter the workforce, immigration is needed to keep the economy and society growing at a steady pace.
Coupled with this is the moral obligation on Australia’s part to be open to immigration seeing as the world population will grow from over 6 billion currently to over 9 billion by 2050 and with the problems this influx will create to already impoverished regions of the world, it would be imperative that the huge landmass of Australia takes its fair share of migrants.
Likewise, Professor of Geography Graeme Hugo cites Australia’s aging society stating that 40% of the workforce will be lost over the next 15 to 20 years, so it will be a matter of finding people to replace the jobs being vacated. Hugo states how jobs are less determined on a particular location adding that ”we have to look at the technological and environmental situation now.” Hugo furthers that, ”whether it’s a totally 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.”
Decentralisation. It makes sense on so many levels, yet until now it has been seemingly a forgotten concept in Australia ever since the Whitlam era with the scrapped proposals of new towns in the New South Wales and Victoria interior. Major centres of Australia, in particular Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane are choking on their own success. Each year the cities swell in size and numbers as migrants – both international, inter- and intra-state – flock to these hubs of politics, business, culture, industry, education and life. The end result is an ever-growing urban sprawl, half-hearted (and loathed by many) urban consolidation and a major strain on already overstretched basic amenities and infrastructure – in particular, transport networks, roads, water supplies, schools and hospitals.
Decentralisation and planned cities are concepts Australia has tackled before and with – dare I say it – much success. After all, Melbourne and Adelaide were surveyed and established as planned towns by Hoddle and Light respectively in 1837 . And, most importantly of all, our national capital – Canberra – is the quintessential planned, decentralised city being born for the sole purpose of being the national capital, whilst at the same time being in between but not in Sydney and/or Melbourne! Walter Burley Griffin, architect of Canberra (along with his wife, Marion) also went on to design the New South Wales Riverina cities of Griffith and Leeton.
Walter Burley Griffin's final plan for Canberra (1913)
As we can see, decentralisation and planned cities have been tackled in the past in Australia and with great success. So, why when Australia is experiencing substantial and sustained population growth, ever increasing stresses and strains on its existing major centres, a relative decline in quality of life in these major centres due to the stress of extra numbers put on the urban and surrounding physical environment, its infrastructure and amenities has the powers that be not adequately looked at decentralisation as a solution or at least an alternative to sustained population growth both now and in years to come in Australia? Why, indeed.
One good thing about urban development in South Korea, despite its relative lack of respect for the physical and natural environment – something that is starting to gain more attention but as of yet not nearly enough, is the ability to think outside the box and look to forward when deciding where, when and how to develop new centres rather than add on already largely crippled urban environments. South Korea has the disadvantage of a population of 50 million cramped in a bottom of an already small peninsula of which 70% of mountainous and a large proportion of the rest is needed – or at least used – for agriculture. The end result is extreme land availability issues. But, with challenges often comes creative solutions, and this has been the case to some degree with Korean urban planning with the development – both completed, under developed and planned – of new towns.
Changwon, nearby the cities of Jinhae and Masan and not far from the port and second largest city of Busan, is a planned city of 500,000 residents (soon to be significantly bigger with the proposed merger with Jinhae and Masan) near the southern coast of the Korean peninsula. The city was established in 1974 as industrial and residential centre to stimulate growth in the region and take pressure off nearby overloaded cities such as Busan and Masan.
Likewise, Songdo International City is a planned city under construction within the metropolitan city of Incheon and the Incheon Free Economic Zone. Here a forward-thinking, ambitious and modern city is being built on reclaimed land a new, long, grand bridge across from Incheon International Airport, South Korea’s premier international gateway. The city is being built to capitalise on its convenient location – both within the Korean peninsula and East Asia as a whole, to entice foreign direct investment and job growth, and rejuvenise the industrial, port city of Incheon nearby the national capital of Seoul. Currently, residents and businesses are starting to move into the half-completed mini-city and by 2020 the city should be fully up and running, and it will be fascinating to see just how well this city develops off the planning board, and just whether it can be the successful model for the world’s future city it plans to be.
Songdo International City's Asia Trade Tower and Convensia exhibition centre on a gloomy winter day
Meanwhile, Korean lawmakers are currently negotiating the size and scope of the next major new planned city in South Korea, Sejong City. Located in what is now South Chungcheong province not far from the city of Daejeon, the city was originally planned as an administrative capital to take the strain off Seoul. However, this has since been scraped and instead the city is planned to be developed as a science and technology hub.
My belief is that Australia needs to be more like South Korea when it comes to urban development and think outside the box when planning where, how and when to develop a new centre. Whilst, Australia may not be as geographically challenged as South Korea when it comes to space and while Australian cities may not be as choked and congested as their South Korean counterparts. Surely it would make sense for the Federal and State Governments to ‘look forward to the past’ and reconsider developing new towns in areas of sufficient rainfall and resources away from already established and relatively crowded areas whilst taking into account the natural environment making sure there is as little detrimental impact as possible.
I recommend the region south of Longford, Tasmania nearby the town of Perth and the second largest city of Launceston (info & aerial satellite, zoom out to see more thorough view of the region), areas to the east and north of Kununurra in Western Australia nearby the Northern Territory (info & aerial satellite) and Katherine area of Northern Territory (info & aerial satellite) as three sites which could be considered as possible new town development regions.
Posted by elcanguro76 
