Save Our
Sydney Suburbs (NSW) Inc.
News
Release August 2005
The Chief of Sydney's planning
Hi SOS Members
THE STORY SO FAR
A year ago we attended the inaugural professorial address of the new head of
Sydney University's Planning Research Centre, Professor Ed Blakely from the
United States. Bob Carr had appointed Professor Blakely as chair of the Reference
Panel for the Metropolitan Strategic Plan. In this address, we expected to hear
of properly researched initiatives that Professor Blakely believes might be
applied to solve broad planning problems experienced by large cities. All we
got were pretty overhead projections of various individual buildings and nothing
about how to approach the planning of a great city.
Professor Blakely's subsequent seminars have continued with the projection of
these pretty pictures, accompanied with the implication (but never an explanation)
of how the detested high density "centres" policy would solve Sydney's
traffic congestion problem, enhance housing choice and make Sydney "sustainable".
Last month I had an article published entitled "Pipe Dreams: The Shortcomings
of Idealogically Based Planning" in which I challenged the reality of claims
by the high-density advocates that high density policies will improve Sydney
in this way.
YESTERDAY'S SEMINAR
This seminar at Sydney University's Institute of Transport and Logistic Studies
featured Professor Blakely speaking on "Metro Plan and Transportation".
Once again the same pretty pictures were projected. But surprisingly, gone were
the claims that the high density policies will reduce traffic congestion or
make Sydney more sustainable. During question time I pointed out that since
the introduction of the urban consolidation policy, journeys by public transport
in Sydney have plummeted from 13% to 9%, completely contrary to what had been
prophesied. I asked what this public transport percentage is projected to be
as a result of the "centres" policy (surely fundamental to the whole
policy). Professor Blakely replied that there is no estimate of how public transport
will be effected! I responded that surely some quantitative estimates must have
been made to provide some justification for this hated policy, some sort of
cost/benefit analysis. He said no, this had not been done. I persisted, surely
such a policy that is being bitterly opposed by sections of the community must
be based on facts. He replied there are plenty of facts, too many, he said.
But he could not produce any. The only problem seems to be that neither he nor
anyone else can tell us what they are!
In these hands lies Sydney's future.
However there were signs that the academic community is waking up. I was encouraged
to hear most of the subsequent questioners adopt a critical rather than the
sycophantic tone characteristic of previous such seminars. The seminar ended
with Professor Blakely inarguably on the back foot.
Tony Recsei
President, Save Our Suburbs