Commenting on the story: SA’s planning minister wants to reshape debate over urban sprawl

Adelaide is already longer than Los Angeles. It is about time that politicians stopped bowing to the developer lobby and actually made some long term plans. Consider the existing public transport hubs and stop crowding existing transport corridors. – Roger Coats

Nick Champion is significantly off the mark with multiple musings, some of which are quite alarming in the 21st century when we are trying to battle climate change and improve quality of life by in turn improving the quality of housing and supporting new developments with appropriate infrastructure, services and opportunities.

For any city, urban sprawl is a catastrophe. It is no ‘whipping boy’. Urban sprawl is economically, environmentally and socially damaging. Australian urban sprawl, not unlike that of American cities, consigns people to travelling long distances by car for work, education or anything else.

These ‘good communities’ are not supported or legislated by governments to have access to reliable, high-speed public transit, or have all the necessities of life within walking or even cycling distance.

To me, as a qualified urban planner, all I see Champion supposing is continuation of the status quo. More cars, more traffic – less time for people to spend with their families because they are instead damned to spending this time in their cars.

However, in all the above catastrophe, there is opportunity. New land releases at Concordia, Sellicks Beach and Dry Creek can be supported by new rail infrastructure, but locations such as Buckland Park and Hackham are lost causes and have and should not be allowed to proceed. – Phil Rollas

When I heard former SA Labor Premier Mike Rann say on radio circa 2010 that the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide aimed to limit urban sprawl, I genuinely thought that the prime motivation was environmental protection. Now I’m not sure whether it was really about avoiding government infrastructure costs.

Either way, what we got was twelve years of rampant urban infill that razed countless trees, backyards, heritage, history and amenity.

Now we have a different Labor government that acknowledges the damage infill development has caused and is changing its focus to greenfield development. So much for the environment. I wonder how much that backflip is due to acknowledging a population of really pissed-off voters and wanting to win the next election?

The reality is that unsustainable development, both infill and greenfield, is environmentally and socially destructive. Take for instance the new Riverlea (Buckland Park) development, 36km from Adelaide with no public transport.

It’s 2023 and high time for environmentally-destructive industries like housing development to subside in lieu of sustainable industries for future prosperity (health, space, cyber, tech, medical science, tourism etc). And yes, that will entail developing a sustainable population policy. I believe the party that is brave enough to do that will prevail. – Carol Faulkner

Commenting on the opinion piece: Don’t ignore the fringes of Fringe

Brilliant! The Fringe is everywhere across Adelaide and regional South Australia.

Thanks for putting it out there for everyone! So much to experience. – Anne Doherty

Great read. The Fringe is so big it’s no surprise I guess that folk play it safe with the well-known venues and also buy tickets for the well known acts.

Maybe if we all commit to making one out-there choice? These guys performing their hearts out for us have had it very tough in the last couple of years. – Rosemary Cadden

Commenting on the story: SA rent bidding ban amid housing crisis

While the rent bidding legislation is expected to provide relief to some families seeking accommodation, it is simply tinkering around the edges of the larger problem of insufficient low-cost housing to meet demand.

It is critical that governments ensure the supply of low-cost housing and accommodation is sufficient to meet market demand. Government actions in this space are fundamental to fair and equitable social and economic outcomes. A priority to ensure sufficient supply should override any desire of government to preserve artificially high real-estate values for landlords or achieve premium returns for developers.

Unfortunately, what we have seen from governments over decades is an unrelenting desire to promote business outcomes over social outcomes in the area of low-cost housing and accommodation for our community’s most vulnerable. Low-cost housing can be built, it just requires political fortitude. – Paul McKinnon