Many towns… < face a situation where the wealth generated in the region is not creating any sort of legacy for the benefit of the people who live there. >

Yes!

It is not just the likes of Mackay that are suffering large-scale changes which are of little benefit to the average established resident; it is the same everywhere, from Cairns to Bunbury.

They all have to deal with rapid population growth, which brings some benefits and some downsides and on average doesn’t do much for the local community.

They might get a wider range of goods and services but they also get more traffic congestion, more pressure on services and infrastructure of all sorts and higher rates and rentals, as well as having most of their rate-payer dollars spent on duplicating everything for new residents rather than improving it for the older population.

THIS should be the major point of discussion when talking about regional cities, yes?

Stephen Smith, like the vast majority of town planners, economists and business people, seems to just blithely accept continuous rapid population growth or perhaps he actually welcomes it while seeing the good things it brings but ignoring the bad.

People live in cities for the lifestyle – for a balance between an uncrowded environment and easy access to most goods and services. But continuous population growth changes it all.

Our unillustrious former Premier in Queensland was very concerned about population pressure in southeast Queensland. But her solution, after much consultation, was not to discourage people from moving to Qld, not to lobby the federal government to reduce immigration, but to encourage people to move to regional cities and towns!

But they all already had high population growth, and really didn’t need it to be boosted.

So, as with the future wellbeing of our whole country, we need to not just accept continuous population growth in our regional cities, but rather; to plan for limits to growth so that we can protect the lifestyle and character of these places.

The answer seems to me to be building brand new regional cities, not over populating, overcrowding, overpricing those we already have.

[We shouldn't be building these new cities on our most valuable agricultural land. The fact that this land, in the main, is also flood plains, makes not rezoning them for urbanisation, a no brainer.]

Rapid rail roll outs and the NBN, will ensure that we do just that and affordablly; given, some of the less fertile land alongside the brand new rail links,could be rezoned as urban.
Traditional cities have been built near, and depend on large waterways.
Water supplies could and should be ameliorated, with tanks and recycling.
Even roadside gutters can have small grids inserted, which in turn connect to underground agri pipes/irrigation tapes, so that most of the water they currently waste, can remain and resupply soil moisture, local aquifers etc.

[Many houses were damaged and or rendered inhabitable, in the most recent drought, by urban land that simply dried out, courtesy of water restrictions!]

Allowing occasional storm-water flows, to quickly soak back in, in a controlled fashion as outlined, would address some of this!
Moreover, the landscape, urban or rural, can and must be made to absorb, store and slowly release our most valuable asset, water.
Even cyclone treated and safe to reuse effluent, ought to be sold to near city market gardens, always providing, [except for low water use algae farming,] it is exclusively applied in water saving underground applications, allowing the soil and the plants, [or mop crops,] to safely use the considerable and often extremely expensive fertilizers and soil improving carbon, without ever compromising human health!
Available water reuse and recycling, will limit where and when we can build viable, brand new regional cities.
Rapid rail links, will ensure their development and survival, and indeed, renewed interest and renewal, in some of our, slowly dying the death of a thousand cuts, former regional centres.
Rhrosty.

Thanks Ludwig. Next time however can you read the article before responding. If you have an agenda to push about population control maybe you should write your own article instead of providing puerile commentary on something you don't understand and entirely miss the point of.

This article is about the nature of three specific regional cities and their influences and journey through time. If you wish to engage in a discussion about the article i'm happy to listen.

Stephen Smith

Stephen, I would have said thankyou for responding, but really, your post is a shocker.

You wrote at the end of your article:

< I am not here to debate this issue, I'm just planting a seed for further discussion. >

Well you are obviously not interested in debating the issue!

But, excuse me, I was entertaining the notion of further discussion…. and well and truly within the subject of regional cities.

You are WRONG Stephen to suggest that my comments were inappropriate.

Now, am I to assume from your hostile response, which does not in any way address the concerns I raised, that you are indeed as I suggested:

You, “like the vast majority of town planners, economists and business people, seem to just blithely accept continuous rapid population growth or perhaps he actually welcomes it while seeing the good things it brings but ignoring the bad.”

For goodness sake, continuous population growth, the rate of growth, the ability for regional city councils to plan for it and carry out their plans effectively, so as to minimise the negative effects of this growth, is all-important to the future of Mackay, Toowoomba and Bendigo… and Albury, Albany, Ballarat, Bunbury, Bundaberg, Cairns, Kalgoorlie, Katoomba, Geelong, Gosford, Mt Gambier, Mt Isa, ……

It is highly relevant to your statement:

Many towns… < face a situation where the wealth generated in the region is not creating any sort of legacy for the benefit of the people who live there >

I find it quite extraordinary (but not unusual) that a town planner and urban designer objects to someone raising the issue of continuous population growth. I mean, how on earth can you properly plan a town or new urban developments if you don’t know what the ultimate population of the place is likely to be or how rapidly it will grow?

SURELY, the ultimate size of the place and a reasonable idea of the growth rate are fundamental things to have a handle on, in order to properly plan new suburbs, and all the infrastructure and services that go with them.

Ludwig, you have obviously hit a raw nerve on a superficial offering; and your response is, sadly, very close to the bone: “--- not unusual) that a town planner and urban designer objects to someone raising the issue of continuous population growth. I mean, how on earth can you properly plan a town or new urban developments if you don’t know what the ultimate population of the place is likely to be or how rapidly it will grow?

SURELY, the ultimate size of the place and a reasonable idea of the growth rate are fundamental things to have a handle on, in order to properly plan new suburbs, and all the infrastructure and services that go with them