Can we solve Australia’s city problem? (Part two)

In the previous article I observed that some 70% of Australians live in our 8 largest cities. By comparison, in the USA their 10 largest cities account for just 26% of their total population. This concentration of population (and especially of growth) in such a small number of cities is reflected in daily media reports of housing shortages and housing affordability (which is some of the worst in the developed world). We also read of rising congestion, hospital shortages, school waiting lists and other features of increasingly crowded cities which just don’t have the infrastructure to keep up with the frantic pace of growth – driven entirely by Federal immigration policy.

Can anything be done to reduce this pressure on our major capitals? After all, this is a big country and – notwithstanding the inhospitable nature of much of the landmass – there are very nice places other than our eight largest cities. Why aren’t more people moving there?

‘Decentralisation’ as an idea in Australia has been around since Federation. Writing in “The Next Australian City” by Suburban Futures, author George Wilkinson III pointed out that efforts to sway state votes in favour of Federation were heavily tinged with promises of decentralisation should Federation be supported. And so began our tradition of doing the opposite of what’s promised?  

In 1901, Australia was home to around 3.8 million people. Melbourne was the biggest with 495,000 people, followed by Sydney (487,000), Adelaide (162,000), Brisbane (121,000), Perth (45,000), and Hobart (36,000). Back then, our top 10 cities accounted for just 37% of the national population. That ratio is now reversed.

Rural and regional industries from mining to agriculture and manufacturing were more labour intensive back then, and the ‘tyranny of distance’ meant more emphasis on providing locally for local community needs. Food supplies for example were more likely to be locally produced, and available only when in season. So much has changed over time and much of that change has been to the detriment of vibrant regional towns and cities.

But ironically, the increasing congestion and collateral impacts of rapid growth in the big cities may once again turn the focus back to some of the regional centres. Which ones are likely to be best positioned, and what could we do to enhance that opportunity?

One thing we should have learned that does not work is the government enforced mandate to relocate entire swathes of unwilling public servants to regional towns they have no interest in. History repeats, and this trope is still sadly favoured by many wanting to promise instant fix solutions.

Instead, here are some suggestions for a more enduring approach to encourage growth outside the major capitals:

Pick candidates. Start with a list of regional towns and cities which offer a good basis for growth. They should have a certain critical mass and reasonable, sustainable economies. The top 20 non-capital city regional areas are a starting point (I am indebted to the good people at Urban Economics for this table):

Housing Affordability is a significant motivation to explore a regional centre as opposed to a capital. Hence the inclusion of median house prices in this table, which compare very favourably with the big capitals where the same house can cost you double or more, for less land and for an inferior dwelling too.

Connectivity is also important. Being able to access a nearby major centre without major difficulty means a local airport with regular services, or a rail connection, is a valuable asset. Armidale for example, which doesn’t make the top 20 list above because of its smaller population (25,000), does have an airport with multiple daily flights to Sydney. Ballarat, which does make the top 20 list above, doesn’t have regular flights to Melbourne but the train service is a 1.5-hour journey. That’s about the time many city dwellers complain about for their daily commute.