There’s something desperately wrong when opinion writers get all fired up and lambast pollies for stupid suggestions, but concurrently make the same suggestion. Guy Rundle has chastised Anthony Albanese’s “lack of infrastructure” and his alleged rock bottom performance on Monday night’s Lateline.
The crux of Rundle’s ire is that the problem with our cities is not the need for fast rail but rather the need for new cities and towns, about 20-odd. According to Rundle, the much anticipated population bomb will make our current cities unliveable and require a significant branching out, with brand new populaces.
There’s always a rich, sweeping melodrama to Rundle’s writing. And he’s not afraid to tip his hat with passing references to anything which can populate his tomes with colour and add some ballast. But frankly, there are two things that spleen me about his latest.
One is the suggestion that we don’t actually need fast rail but must instead create these new cities with links just 30 minutes from where you would rather be, by (you guessed it) fast rail.
Secondly, these new cities and towns should not only be eco-friendly (whatever that entails) and designed by the best architects around but also not elitist. Unfortunately you really can’t have the name Gehry and the words ‘not elitist’ in the same paragraph. And by not elitist, Rundle means “low-income creative types, from painters to punk bands, can live there and transform them as they go.” Really, I think transition towns will be over-run before government starts planning Punktown. Why not just be elitist and say, “Not poor and uninteresting people”?
I sort of feel sorry for Rundle. His coverage of the Obama campaign was enriching and you couldn’t help enjoying his relish, knowing that this was going to be the most interesting thing that ever happened in his life. Staying up to critique Albo on Lateline — whether he looks like Doc Evatt or not — must feel crushing in comparison.
It’s not really worth getting so worked up about. Albo clearly doesn’t have much interest in trains, ports and roads. He’s much more worried about Carmel and the forthcoming bloodbath in NSW. But Rundle can do much better than this. This was like reading Catherine Deveny with a cock and an idea.

team@groupthink.com.au

#1 by Campbell on 29 October 2009 - 10:08 am
Quote
This was like reading Catherine Deveny with a cock and an idea.
I think that sentence blew the rest of the post out of the water. It’s almost scary.
#2 by David F on 29 October 2009 - 1:49 pm
Quote
I thought there was a grain of truth to Rundle’s point, though he wasn’t entirely clear on this city business. Comparing him to Deveney is one step too harsh though. It’d be like comparing her to Bolt.
#3 by Dave Gaukroger on 29 October 2009 - 3:58 pm
Quote
The stupid thing about Rundle’s ‘new cities’ idea is that the existing rural cities in Australia could achieve almost everything he wants if they were given the proper resources.
Albury, Orange, Tamworth, Armidale, Dubbo, Bathurst – all of these cities have the potential for further growth, have existing transport corridors which could be easily upgraded and don’t suffer from being ‘company towns’ the way the Canberra used to be, and Rundle’s new cities would also inevitably be.
#4 by Jason on 29 October 2009 - 4:16 pm
Quote
Not to mention existing medium-sized cities that could do with some serious investment and attention, and could perform a similar role – Newcastle, Ipswich, Wollongong…
#5 by Ray Dixon on 29 October 2009 - 4:20 pm
Quote
I agree, Dave, but it’s Albury-Wodonga, remember? Victoria is actually far better placed for regional expansion because so many centres are within 2 – 3 hours of Melbourne, whereas NSW is far more spread out.
#6 by David F on 29 October 2009 - 5:29 pm
Quote
The stupid thing about Rundle’s ‘new cities’ idea is that the existing rural cities in Australia could achieve almost everything he wants if they were given the proper resources.
Agreed – Victoria in particular should develop and invest in regional centres. It would also help the housing crisis.
#7 by Ray Dixon on 29 October 2009 - 8:40 pm
Quote
Absolutely, David F. It is incredible to think that people are paying $500,000 for an average shack in Melbourne when that would buy them two average shacks in many regional centres just 200 – 300 kms away, that also have major infrastructures, jobs and a great lifestyle. Victoria’s major regional centres are seriously underpopulated and it has to change.
#8 by Topher on 29 October 2009 - 10:48 pm
Quote
Aren’t most planned or new cities usually the most un-punk places you can think of?
#9 by Molesworth on 30 October 2009 - 12:58 am
Quote
A town run by low-rent artists and punk bands would be anarachy, and not even in the UK. Molesworth disapproves. I would never give over cities to those people in order for Rundle to have somewhere fashionable to live.