"All up, it’s a pretty damming assessment of what’s been achieved in just over a decade. Of course the proponents of the current approach might warn that – without all this complexity, cost and frustration – Queensland would be subject to ‘runaway growth’ and a ‘return to the policies of sprawl.’ The answer to that, surely, is that everything prior to the late 1990s was delivered – successfully - without all this baggage. Life was affordable, the economy strong, growth was a positive and things were getting done. Queensland, and south east Queensland in particular, was regarded as a place with a strong future and a magnet for talent and capital. Now, that’s been lost."

The above sums it up pretty well. Perrhaps after all, it is a good outcome as it keeps this push for growth, growth, growth, in check.

David

Einstein also said that, "The most powerful force in the universe is compound interest" by which he was referring to the impossibility of continuous growth in a finite system. Your interesting essay illustrates how, as system sizes increase and place strains on resources (e.g. travel time and physical resources such as water etc.), continued growth becomes both more complex and more difficult. So in reply to your question, "Is the environment better served? If you believe that the only way the environment can be better served is by choking off growth under the weight of regulation and taxation, you might say yes." I guess I would have to say, unfortunately, yes.

Well done, Ross. This is a sad and accurate tale of government interference in the provision of housing. It's not confined to planning and development, of course. Governments now routinely interfere in the decisions we citizens make about our own lives. Restrictions on gambling and plain paper packaging for cigarettes are the most egregious current examples but there are now so many restrictions on the way we choose to live, it's hard to keep up with them.

It's time to revisit the contract that exists between the people and their government in Australia. Trusting the people is an essential starting point for successful government. It's only when governments trust the people that they are able to resist the siren calls of various 'go-gooder' industries to intervene in our daily behaviour.

Ross Elliott wrote 28 November 2011:

>... Albert Einstein, was noted for his powers of observation and rigorous observance of the scientific method ...

Einstein was a theoretical physicist. He left experiments and observations to others.

>... It was insanity, he once wrote, to repeat the same experiment over and over again, and to expect a different outcome. ...

I can't find where Einstein wrote that. The scientific method does in fact require the same experiment to be repeated, by a different experimenter, to confirm results.

By the way, a handwritten manuscript by Einstein is on display at the National Library of Australia: http://blog.tomw.net.au/2011/11/manuscripts-from-berlin-state-library.html

>... I wonder what Einstein would make of the last decade and a bit of experimentation in urban planning and development assessment?

Einstein had the good sense to stick to his area of expertise. As an example he refused to be President of Israel.

>... decade of ‘reform’ and ‘innovation’ in the fields of town planning ... no measureable benefit ...

What was the hypothesis being tested? What was tried? What were the expected benefits? What were the results?

>... The significant philosophical change, enforced by the regional plan, was that land for growth instantly became scarcer because planning permission would be denied in areas outside the artificially imposed land boundary ...

Placing a boundary on a city is not a new idea and would seem a reasonable approach to land planning. You need to make the city dense to make it efficient. Limiting the land available increases its value. The price signal is one way to see the land is used efficiently.

> The first South East Queensland Regional Plan 2005-2026 was born ...

Things are less complicated in Canberra: the city is much smaller and more used to planning. Last year I took part in a Canberra 2030 planning exercise. My suggestion was to triple the population within the current city limits, to make it more environmentally sustainable and financially affordable: http://blog.tomw.net.au/search/label/Canberra%202030

More recently Simon Corbell MLA, talked on "Creating a Sustainable Garden City: http://blog.tomw.net.au/2011/10/canberra-sustainable-garden-city.html

More on land planning: http://blog.tomw.net.au/search/label/land%20planning

How dare you, Ross?

Are you not aware that so many clerks are dependent on this scheme?

Are you not aware that there are no other jobs they can be good at?

Are you not aware that those clerks vote Labor in gratitude for their jobs?

Are you not aware that those clerks have mortgages and children to feed?

Are you not ashamed that just because you want your house to be approved quickly, cheaply and efficiently, you may cause those poor children to miss on their new Nintendo?

Thanks Ross

Pretty true. But whilst we have so many people who want to control the assets of others and whilst we are producing too many planners from the green indoctrinated university I can't see much changing. Pollies seem quite happy to be able to control us all by locking up our land with restrictions. It is not really about wanting the best for the country that is a big furfy. It is really about CONTROL.
We all know what is happening with the gas exploration and how they can march all over people's property and literally destroy the landscape without having to jump through any of the hurdles that tie up the landowner himself if he actually wants to do something productive.
It is one rule for them (the government) and a completely different set of rules for landowners.
Still we have to try and stop the rot somehow.

Thanks for such a good clear description of the stupidity they call planning today, Ross.

Tomws post shows how dictatorial these planners have become, & how wrong headed. Don't you realise they are the font of all that's godly & green in planning, & nothing is going to change them? The arrogance of telling us he wants to make Canberra even worse than it is now, is typical of the breed.

Has anyone else noticed a real similarity in attitude between urban planners & the global warming scam promoters? I wonder which group is admiringly copying the other.

Unfortunately Yuyutsu comes far too close to the bone, with his comment. We have been hearing this bullsh1t about service industries being the way of the future for quite some time. Well it appears we can't get "service" jobs going in the private sector, so we will now employ the useless in the public sector.

I wonder how long before we, in an effort to get more off the dole queues, will start employing garbage inspectors enabled to issue fines, if we have not sorted our garbage as dictated to a number of bins. Don't laugh, they are doing it in pommy land, one of the places our planners like to copy.

The thing I wonder about is the supposed new thinking about the new tram line - it was supposed to include a betterment recovery element but all I can find if governmental subsidy. When, pray, will be have a match between community planning, central planning, community willingness to pay, and community inability to escape taxation related to bad planning and projects!

The problem with racking, packing, and stacking us in at higher densities is that people didn’t evolve as hive animals, unlike ants or naked mole rats. There are many of us who don’t cope well with crowding, noise, pollution, being cut off from nature, and all the other joys of urban living. The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index happiness surveys have repeatedly found that people are happier at lower densities, even if they have less money.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/welcome-to-the-angstridden-inner-west/2006/02/12/1139679480760.html

As described in the Guardian article below, people living at high densities have 21% more anxiety disorders, 39% more mood disorders, and double the incidence of schizophrenia.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/jun/22/city-living-afffects-brain

Here is a link to the original paper from Nature

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7352/full/nature10190.html

High density is particularly bad for children. Parents come under intense pressure to keep them quiet, so there is a strong temptation to keep them pacified with television, computer games, and bowls of junk food. There is usually no place for them to play outside without constant adult supervision. Even if a complex does have a playground, there is no way that parents can exclude bullies as they could from a private garden. Prof. Bill Randolph has found that high density definitely has negative effects on children’s physical and social development

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/planners-warned-of-clumsy-generation/2006/12/05/1165080945270.html

Rearing children under such conditions is so aversive that demographer Joel Kotkin has called high density a more effective method to bring down fertility rates than China’s one child policy.

http://www.news.com.au/money/property/sydneys-dense-housing-a-threat-to-fertility-rates-warns-joel-kotkin/story-e6frfmd0-1226135327168

http://www.propertyoz.com.au/Profiles/ProfileDetail.aspx?pid=55

This might be considered a feature, not a bug, in grossly overpopulated European and East Asian countries, but in country with high immigration, it simply means ethnic replacement.

Hasbeen wrote 28 November 2011 1:12:00 PM:

> Tomws post shows how dictatorial these planners have become, & how wrong headed. ...

I am not a planner, just a citizen expressing my view on how the city I live in should be.

> Has anyone else noticed a real similarity in attitude between urban planners & the global warming scam promoters? I wonder which group is admiringly copying the other.

It is likely that there is more acceptance of climate change by planners, as they receive some training in environmental matters.

It happens I do teach the estimation and reduction of carbon emissions, but for computer people, not town planners: http://www.tomw.net.au/ict_sustainability/

Excellent piece Ross,

It seems there is a one way street with these regulatory issues. Once in we never see them removed. This is in spite of all the material like that which you assemble for Queensland that demonstrates no improvement in achieving the planning goals while there are lots of additional costs and callous overrides of consumer wishes.

Four years ago I published a study on the Sunshine Coast which concluded
• Home prices on the Sunshine Coast have escalated markedly in recent years. International assessment of housing affordability highlights that the region was the seventh least affordable area of the 227 markets analysed;
• While some suggest that demand is the prime cause of housing price increases along with higher construction costs, analysis shows that land prices are the fundamental drivers of the price increases;
• The Sunshine Coast has a potentially large availability of land for housing, but government regulations have restricted this, and, together with high taxes, have brought escalating land costs;
• Building regulations are also a contributor to rising house costs, but are a secondary influence;
• With the new Sunshine Coast Regional Council coming into existence in 2008, it is possible for a more regional focus to be given to housing affordability issues and in particular to its real underlying cause - regulatory measures, compounded by excessive taxation.

Nothing, of course, improved. The laws just got more intense and the costs of land, for which there is unlimited availability just got progressively dearer as the state and city conspired to reduce its availability.

Alan Moran