Interesting article, which simply underlines the fact that Labour is city centric Koala habitat destroying environmental vandals? Until forced by minority govt to start reinvesting in the regions.
Their urban development policy settings brings to mind a little humour which goes.
A baby sardine and his mum were coasting/floating along on the east coast current, toward the richer feeding fields to the south. Anyhow, as they floated by the towering Gold Coast skyline and its concrete jungle, the little tiddler nudged his mum with a fin and remarked, "look mum, tinned people."
This fishy tail sums up Labour's idea of urban development/urban renewal for me.
We need to finish with poll driven policy and focus groups, ["or, very deep pockets,"] all but deciding policy settings and future direction.
When what we need now is quite massive decentralization, which could be built on the back of several dozen progressively rolled out, new very rapid rail links. [The Magnetron apparently is capable of speeds in excess of 900 KLMS AH.] And arguably, the Chinese engineers, who built those now operating in China, could probably roll out a few dozen here for considerably less than we'd likely pay the Germans/French/Japanese for their much slower older models.
Imagine, a whisper quiet train service that would get you from Melbourne to Sydney, or Sydney to Brisbane, or Adelaide to Perth in less than half the time you need to fly.
Imagine the steel and aluminium we'd need to build the new tracks and rolling stock and how many industries that could be kept alive and well until the world recovered completely from the current economic downturn; or indeed, just how strong we could be if we simply allowed practical pragmatism to replace polls and focus groups!
What we don't need is even more of our most productive land being covered over with even more bitumen and concrete! Rhrosty.

The article doesn't tell me anything new & revolutionary. The other thing is that no-one ever seems to ask if we actually need such infrastructure in the first place. personally I think that may believe we need it but have actually no idea why.
Ludwig is being ridiculed for mentioning the obvious re population growth but some morons can't see past their eyelashes. Growth ? Apart from giving us more pollution & less space, what does growth provide us with ? Yes, a handful of hangers-on have a good bludge but for the rest of there's still not enough to keep us going on the pittance they call pension. Growth is is merely a speeding up of the demise of everything we value now & many of our forebears fought so hard for. A handful of morons who don't know the meaning of supporting themselves feel it's ok to deny the older generation it's due compensation for the sake of a fast life in a meaningless existence that is their life.

Oh god, more town planing. We would all be much better if wee had eradicated the breed 30 years ago, or banned any of them going to Copenhagen.

Their continual fixation with bicycles & public transport has done much more to stuff our cities than help them.

If they had earned their crust, there would be virtually no public servants in city centers. In this computer age, they would be scattered all over the state. Without this lot, there would be much less travel into these centers, as the well paid bureaucrats draw far too much retail trade to these places.

Then they totally forget that about 45% of workers have to drop off/pick up kids, shop or do chores on the way. Bicycles & public transport are useless to these folk, but our planners all want to subsidise it, & force us to use it.

We have them all trying to force urban consolidation on us. Have you read about that experiment with laboratory rats? Crowd too many into a restricted space, & they start killing each other. Noticed anything of the increasing violence in our now overcrowded cities? Obviously the planners haven't.

I could go on, but then, I suppose I all ready have.

“Even so, urban design is something the anti-pops could get involved in as most of them are science or engineering gnomes.” Posted by Cheryl.
Now that’s a comment typical of “Eco-Fascist” Cheryl/Malcolm King style: scientists and engineers - can’t believe those types, what would they know? Similarly, mathematicians with their crazy concepts.
“Most of our cities are still being built ala the 1950s. Old world thinking.” Posted by Cheryl.
Old world thinking indeed - the city of Canberra being developed in that era was regarded by the then planning community as the best example of city planning in the world; and it was a great place for cohesive family and community living. But yes, that is now old-hat; following the “Eco-Fascist” Cheryl/Malcolm dictate, Australian city planning there and elsewhere is pedal-to-the-metal in the direction of Mumbai, Mexico City, Cairo, and all, where the numbers are.

Ludwig, I really do worry about you the same way I worry about Craig Thomson, Julia Gillard, Craig Emerson, Greg Combet, Wayne Swann, Anthony Albanese and Stephen Conroy.

There is something staggeringly strange about a world that presents Kevin Rudd as the savior of a political party that has already been buried.

You support the theory that any savior of the ALP will do; I see this as a job for the undertaker. Now take out the words Kevin Rudd and replace them with CAGW and guess what, nothing changes!

Whatever you present through the prism of ALP policy is self evidently flawed. You just don’t get what it is you don’t even get.

What does your Mum think?

<< I could go on, but then, I suppose I all ready have. >>

Heheheheee. Yes, you have just a tad, Hasbeen!

Crikey, those poor old town planners!

<< Their continual fixation with bicycles & public transport has done much more to stuff our cities than help them. >>

Whaat?? How do you figure that?

<< If they had earned their crust, there would be virtually no public servants in city centers…. Without this lot, there would be much less travel into these centers >>

You reckon? I can’t imagine that this would be a particularly big factor.

<< We have them all trying to force urban consolidation on us… >>

Some extent of urban consolidation is good. But like anything it can be taken too far.

You’ve left out the biggest and most real criticism of all – town planners’ blithe pandering to never-ending population growth.

Surely it is a fundamental role of all town planners to say to the government, federal, state and local, that they’d be able to plan much better for new suburbs and improvements to existing suburbs and cities if they didn’t have to deal with constantly increasing population, or at least if they knew what the ultimate population level will be, in the area they are planning, in the greater region and in the whole country!

.

Spinny, are you sure you have posted on the right thread, and are responding to the right person?

Because I haven’t that faintest clue what your post is about!! ( :>|