The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Small town life-styles > Comments

Small town life-styles : Comments

By Lyn Allison, published 28/9/2006

Decentralisation is the only possible long-term solution to the sprawling problems of Sydney and Melbourne.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
I fully agree with Peter,JH. Australia is the driest continent on Earth. Unlike the US, we don't have major river systems from which we can conviently pump huge amounts of water. I've been down this path about decentralisation following another article about how ever increasing populations in larger rural cities have all but destroyed the charm of those places that made them what they were. Eg. Since the population of Ballarat swelled by an extra 20,000 people in the last 15 - 20 years it's been plaqued by traffic conjestion at peak times, vandalism, theft and an ever increasing water supply problem which goes back further than present drought conditions. Take a look at any of the newly developed housing areas. Blindfold anyone in Caroline Springs and take them to these Ballarat housing estates and they'll think you've been driving them around the block for an hour or so. And the place grows steadily larger and uglier every year. Maybe what we need to do is massively reduce immigration and stop people breeding like maggots on a dead sheep.
Sorry Foundation. Couldn't help myself.
Posted by Wildcat, Thursday, 28 September 2006 1:49:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In NSW, the ideal areas for decentralisation which have presented themselves are within a few hours drive of Sydney. New road networks like the M7 and M2 in Sydney allow a person from Bowral, Berrima, Goulburn to reach the centre of Sydney within 2 hours in good traffic. If the lure of the big smoke is something to be contended with, surely the growth of towns around the Southern Tablelands, The Hunter and just west of the Diving Range should be promoted first.

The best thing about decentralisation to these areas would be that extending broadband internet to these areas is not too tricky, and there is a readily avaliable architectural vernacular that can be adopted to develop these towns without affecting their feel and character. If land were opened up without taxes, and developers given pattern-books of the architectural styles that predominate in each town, and were forced to develop along the lines of traditional suburbs (2 story main drag of shops and offices, surrounded by terraces and cottages, then surrounded by suburban blocks, with land designated for parks and homestead houses on the edge), then some of these towns are perfect for development. The ratio of townhousing and cottages to suburban blocks should be enough to make the suburb walkable (15-18 minutes walk maximum between shopping districts, making it les than 10 minute walk to get there).

Take Berrima, dominated by its Colonial Grecian courthouse and prison, and its Georgian sandstone houses and buisnesses, the issueing of a handbook of Georgian, Regency and Mannerist styles, the use of Filigree lace, and the opening up of a vein of local sandstone to build them with, would enhance the feel of that beautiful town... rather than it be denigrated with concrete, glass, reinforced steel and McMansions.

To lower house-prices, and ensure a continual link with the land and rural Australia, decentralisation is essential, but it must destroy our heritage, but rather be built around enhancing it by the use of traditional architecture and urbanism. We cannot destroy these towns like we have wasted Sydney.
Posted by DFXK, Thursday, 28 September 2006 3:16:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have always liked the rehtorical style of the Democrats.

And i beleive for certain Lyn Allison has tipped a major point in future politics.

Gadget once lived near a town called Won Wron, and in the early days of settlement there was a light rail and settlement that went way into to the bush (a long way in those days) near a place called White Womans Waterhole. There is a twin history to the place, and the ruins of both tales are still there to be found. I recomend it to anybody who wants to find it.

My point is this, and it aligns with Allison (i hope). If we did it then, why shoudnt we do it again. America as we all should recognise was built on the backs of the rail networks. And did they build. We didnt. Nontheless, we could still do the rail system in the future, and it would be the best system in confronting future problems.

And now for my peice-de-resitance: Why not build nuclear powered steam trains?

I know the Left will howl, but oh what a brilliant idea! Just remember, Gadget has a real name, and Intellectual Property Rights. Lyn Allison is authorised to seek my consultation.
Posted by Gadget, Thursday, 28 September 2006 5:18:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Decentralisation works when and only when centralising national governments cede power to decentralised regional or provincial level governments that then have real power. That requires constitutional change. Not only does the federal govt have to concede powers to the states: they have to in turn concede powers to the regions. Yet all our political dynamics in Australia run in the other direction. The feds gain more and more power over the nation, monopolising taxation through the GST and income tax, snd turning the once proud states into little more than executing agencies - eg look at education! The states do the same to local shire councils, with their "efficiency" amalgamations that suck the lifeblood out of local communities.

Maybe we need more states - NSW could easily be three, South Central and North. So could Queensland. Western Australia could be three too. Victoria could be three - East Central amd West. Then we would see real decentralisation and separation of powers which is what this argument should be about.

But in Australia now, the great god of economic efficiency rules. Which is why we will finish up an authoritarian, unitary, centralised nation - unless we shake our thinking up and put a higher priority on democracy, local autonomy, than on economic efficiency ...
Posted by tony kevin, Thursday, 28 September 2006 9:27:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is barely enough water to maintain status quo. Any plan for an increase in population must include an expansion in water catchment and storage. I see more dams as the only solution. Desalination on a large scale is far too energy demanding. It's illogical to talk about the greenhouse effect and at the same time fire up huge power plants to drive desal plants. Even environmentalists will have to concede that to dam a valley has far less environmental impact than to run more power stations.
No-one wants more power stations and dams and infringe on even more of what little is left wilderness but far too many want to bring more people into the country and have more growth. Share holders want more profit, shoppers want more and better food on the supermarket shelves. All of this requires more water.
Unfortunately, the want more society is working itself into an inescapable corner.
My logic might be way off but i'll air it anyway. Like it or not people too ar part of nature and can be dealt a hefty blow by nature as we do to her. If the continent is too dry to support any increase in population and we don't want to interfere with nature any further then let's not have a population increase. Ok. If we do want more water than we have to interfere with nature, period ! It's how we interfere that's the question. Ever heard of the Bradfield scheme ? No ? Go and Google it. makes sense to anyone with sense. How about flooding Lake Ayr ? The resulting evaporation from such a huge expanse of water fresh or salt, could quite possibly cause a weather pattern resulting in the greening of much of the presently arid interior. To flood Lake Ayr would not entirely be environmentally unacceptable considering that it does flood naturally occasionally. The solution is staring at us but because of our political system ie. tunnel visioned, revenue ravishing minority groups dictating a supposed democracy, the problems will increase in pace with the demand for water
Posted by pragma, Thursday, 28 September 2006 9:33:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
appologies for posting here accidentally. pragma
Posted by pragma, Thursday, 28 September 2006 9:40:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy