Given the fact that Australia needs to create another Sydney or Melbourne every 8-10 years to keep pace with our immigration and also maintain reasonable health, a decent standard of living, affordable housing ........
Where is Government looking to start up this next major city?

Or is it same old same old and do nothing as we breathe increasing amounts of dangerous pollution.
We have exported most of our manufacturing jobs off to China so they can die early from their pollution.
Anyone who has been to Beijing knows blue skies are a rarity in that city except it's pollution which mostly "clouds" over their sky.
www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-10/sydney-high-air-pollution-prompts-warning-from-nsw-heath/8171618

I think it will be the Northern Territory. .........its the closest to Asia. ........

I think it should be on the border of SA and WA, just so that the drive is not so boring!

Unfortunately though governments don't seem to go for big moves and just keep jamming people into the same cities as its easy.

i think they need to have a place that has lots of government offices, but these are usually only in the state capitals. If they have government jobs, other industries grow up around them.

Even in Sydney, just moving government offices from the CBD to Parramatta seems to be a drama. I don't know if its staff that don't want to work in Parramatta or managers that don't want to work there, but they don't seem to be too successful at moving. So if that is any indication, there will be no new cities or ones that become as large as a capital.

Dont care as long as its no where near me. I like our quite town, only time we have pressure is the northeners, ie Alice mob comming down for a swim and thats only over January holidays

I don't quite know how you jumped from creating new city's to China smog...

Anyway.

We have 17 City's in Australia with 100k plus.

22 Citys with 75k plus.

Given our size its probably smarter to keep infrastructure localized. We sure aint no Singapore.

Tittybong

Wellington NZ

You could probably fit another Sydney into the existing footprint of Perth. It's so damn spread out. It's effectively 150km north to south and 40-50km inland. You don't need new cities just make better use of the ones we have.

Select to expand quote

Chris6791 said..
You could probably fit another Sydney into the existing footprint of Perth. It's so damn spread out. It's effectively 150km north to south and 40-50km inland. You don't need new cities just make better use of the ones we have.

Not enough clean available drinking water. Place is built in an arid area.

Well just keep building desal plants, the next one will be 20km south of Lancelin.

No more cities the size of Sydney or Melbourne please!
Urban sprawl is unsightly, just so inefficient and really not the answer.
Clearly in the future we do need more city options before Sydney and Melbourne grind to an unhealthy halt.

There seems to be very little thought about where we go to solve the housing problem.
Land for housing should be much more strategic than what State Governments have pushed onto every Council within
a few hours drive from Sydney.
For example, Kiama Municipality, 100km south of Sydney which has such very very rich farming soils that are very importantly very well watered.
These lands are not the solution to Sydney's housing problems.

The development industry quickly put out there that "people need to live somewhere", and that's true.
However if we are talking basics people also need to eat.
The food bowl of Australia, the Murray Darling is dying daily and many more people are also arriving daily.

There are lands to live on and there are those that should be zoned farmland forever.
In the same way as you set aside a National Park for other good reasons.
Farmland with beautiful beaches nearby close enough for an easy day's return trip from Sydney are Tourist havens.
That is the only future for Kiama. Farming, uncrowded beaches and tourism go very well together.
They are treasures to be enjoyed by all.
Not just endless suburb after suburbs of ugly urban sprawl.
Yet no matter how many times they are told, the fools that Govern us just don't get it.

Select to expand quote

Chris6791 said..
Well just keep building desal plants, the next one will be 20km south of Lancelin.

Or run a pipeline to Woodie Woodie mine site North of Marble Bar and pump the abundance water down from there.

Select to expand quote

mineral1 said...

Chris6791 said..
Well just keep building desal plants, the next one will be 20km south of Lancelin.

Or run a pipeline to Woodie Woodie mine site North of Marble Bar and pump the abundance water down from there.

They've been floating the pipeline idea for decades. It probably uses less energy to desal it close to its end user than pipe it 2-3000km.

The WA state govt still own Breton Bay (proposed nuclear power station and heavy industry site from the 1950's) and the Water Corp are in the consultation phase for a 1000mm pipeline from the city to Lancelin, or more likely Lancelin to Perth.

Select to expand quote

Chris_M said..
Tittybong

Smoko

To cover an aging workforce our next city will be mobile and comprise of thousands of caravans and underpowered vehicles to tow them

Gerroa

I saw a projection years ago that predicted that the entire east coast will end up becoming a mega city as all the smaller towns expand until it becomes a gigantic continuous city.
So I would say that our next city is already on the way the question really is who is going to have the balls to provide the infrastructures for the future .

Mandurah - there's enough roundabouts already...

Big cities need to stop their sprawl, and become more densely populated. This allows infrastructure such as public transport to become cost effective, and actually more convenient to use than cars etc.

If you don't like the city life...leave. By having the cities more densely populated it then allows more regional areas to offer a different alternative to city life.

Select to expand quote

Knottedup said..

For example, Kiama Municipality, 100km south of Sydney which has such very very rich farming soils that are very importantly very well watered.
These lands are not the solution to Sydney's housing problems.

If that soil is so good, why does it only grow cows?

It's Newcastle. They pulled out the railway to accommodate it.

1) build pipeline from Kununurra overflow to Perth
2) have water points all the way from north to South for farming through the arid areas, even possible aquaculture Barra
3) provided that there is head pressure limited power would be required to pump, possible use of solar power wa north west
4) proceed with Geraldton port expansion and build city, this will happen soon either way, I believe whether or not my governing plans are adhered too that Geraldton will be the next big city in wa

^^^ not enough head height from Argyle to Perth, the top of the dam wall is only 200m or so above sea level. It would need to be pumped all the way.

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..

Knottedup said..

For example, Kiama Municipality, 100km south of Sydney which has such very very rich farming soils that are very importantly very well watered.
These lands are not the solution to Sydney's housing problems.

If that soil is so good, why does it only grow cows?

There is no doubt at all that the soils are very rich.
They are listed in the top 3% of soil quality in NSW.
The soils there are mostly the iron rich Krasnozen soils. Which is one of the most versatile soils of all.
As said before one of the huge agricultural strengths of this area is the high rainfall.
To add to that the back up water supply is second to none in NSW.
Just down the road a few kms is the Township of Berry which is connected to the upper Shoalhaven River.
The last time Sydney had a drought 80% of Sydney's water was pumped from the Tallowa Dam.
It makes you wonder why Kiama and for that matter Wollongong gets it's water from the Sydney system.

Even nearby by the Gerroa Sewerage Treatment Plant (STP) is tertiary treated which is the highest treatment of all. Said to drinkable.
This treated water is then pumped onto one farm. Plenty is wasted because of this action alone.
Just so typical of Sydney Water.
Add to that all of Kiama's sewerage water is pumped straight to the ocean. Plenty of water wasted there again.
Years ago residents of Kiama held the "Big Poo" awareness campaign. To try to get Sydney Water to pump the treated sewerage back to Jamberoo.
It was a very opportune moment as Jamberoo was connecting to the Bombo STP so all that was needed was another pipe to be put into the same hole as the feeder pipes to take the water back to Jamberoo's very futile soils.
The farmers wanted it.
Frank Sartor, the Minister wouldn't allow it for no good reason at all.
Yet again a dumb decision.

So to answer your question why do these soils only grow cows.
I guess the answer is most of the farmers are old and stuck in their ways.
It's human nature do things the way you know and the way you have always done it.
However one day the penny will drop and with good planning the land will still be farmland.
Not full of houses wrecking Kiama's best future.

Maybe its your councils fault & if it was amalgamated these problems would have been solved

Select to expand quote

actiomax said..
Maybe its your councils fault & if it was amalgamated these problems would have been solved

Nah, that would change nothing.

Kiama's problem is that it is too nice a place to live and its close enough to Sydney.

I remember as a kid we used to holiday down there at the relatives place and the town was smaller. I remember when they built the recreation centre/pool and thought that it was way out of town. Now, its relatively central.

The drive from Kiama on a Sunday evening would be a slow trip along the bends at Minamurra, and bumper to bumper. Now, its freeway most of the way and fast.

Select to expand quote

actiomax said..
Maybe its your councils fault & if it was amalgamated these problems would have been solved

Hahaha, surely you forgot the winking emoji face at the end of your statement, because you couldn't be more wrong mate.
All of Kiama's neighbouring Councils are pro development. Quite the opposite to Kiama.
So amalgamation would have been death to farmland and tourism.
Without doubt amalgamation would have meant massive housing estates would have been Kiama's dumb future.
If you re read my opening statement then you'll see I gave you a tip:
“Land for housing should be much more strategic than what State Governments have pushed onto every Council within a few hours drive from Sydney.”

In the late 80's and early 90's Kiama Council's Mayor was the biggest property developer on the South Coast. Ever since getting rid of that guy, Kiama Council has resisted the state government's push to force way more housing than was acceptable. Councils to the North are closer to employment lands and maybe some Councils may see massive housing estates as being not such a bad idea.
However the Kiama community know what is best for it and they vote that way.

All other matters I mentioned are clearly state issues so it has nothing to do with Kiama Council.

Select to expand quote

Chris6791 said..
^^^ not enough head height from Argyle to Perth, the top of the dam wall is only 200m or so above sea level. It would need to be pumped all the way.

nah mate, its a downhill run all the way.

[Our mob had an officer who tried telling us that the terrain depicted on the top of the map was higher elevation than the bottom].

There is nothing as scary, as an officer with a map and compass

better now