Where to put the extra millions at the end of the 21st century?

PROJECTIONS show the national population growing from 22 million to between 34 million and 62 million at the end of the century.

LAST September the Australian Bureau of Statistics produced population projections showing what Australia and its capital cities might look like in 2056.

A high-level projection was also provided to 2101. All projections show the national population growing from 22 million currently to between 34 million and 62 million at the end of the century.

The ABS gives no clue as to what our cities might look like in a world of 62 million Australians, but there is a perspective on how our cities might grow under lesser scenarios.

Under the medium migration assumption of 180,000 per annum the population in 2056 is expected to reach 35 million.

In this world Melbourne and Sydney both approach seven million residents or about three million more than the current population.

To the Australian mind these are huge numbers - but Western cities such as London, Paris and Chicago contain more people. Los Angeles has 18 million, New York 23 million and Tokyo 34 million.

Despite the fact that other cities have grown to this scale and more, it raises the question of what Sydney and Melbourne will look like at seven million.

There are plans to take Melbourne to five million, which involve consolidating the urban footprint and extending suburbia around transportation arteries, mostly in the west.

But what of the next stage of urban growth beyond five million to six then seven million? Melbourne and Sydney jointly contain 14 million residents of Australia's 35 million.

Does this mean Sydney and Melbourne will account for 24 million if Australia reaches 62 million then? Is this possible?

There is always the argument that new cities will emerge during the 21st century, but in the 20th century only two big cities were created: Canberra and the Gold Coast. Both of these combined accounted for barely one-seventh of the population of Sydney and Melbourne by 2000.

New large cities might be developed in the 21st century, and I hope they are, especially in the north and northwest, but the main focus of population growth will remain the job centres of Sydney and Melbourne.

What is likely to develop during the 21st century is a loose fusing of the cities and towns of southeast Queensland and the NSW Northern Rivers region into a population mass that is never quite equal to that of Melbourne or Sydney.

There is the very real prospect that urban planners will have to manage the development of three Australian mega-regions (Sydney, Melbourne, southeast Queensland) each rising to between five and seven million by century's end.

This means Sydney and Melbourne will have to accommodate an extra three million residents, or two million more than current planning has considered.

Where is Sydney going to add an extra two million residents over and above its current plans for five million? How will Melbourne provide water for an extra two million residents beyond the five million anticipated by current planning?

I get the sense that planners are so focused on managing urban growth to five million that they think it all ends there.

But it won't end there. It is fair to say that Australia's role with the rest of the world is likely to remain that of migrant destination for decades to come, indeed for another century and possibly much longer.

If ever there was a need for a nation to naturally develop an inherent field of excellence, it is Australia and the skill of urban planning. We should lead the world in this.

If Melbourne and Sydney are to grow to seven million and beyond, surely both cities need to consider long-term water and power supplies.

It may be possible to crib a few extra years of water supply by preservation and pipelines but this will not supply water needs for the two million-plus residents expected in Sydney and Melbourne beyond 2030.

The same goes for power. How many wind farms does it take to support cities jumping from four million to seven million in half a century? Or is the strategy to crib and stall and to eke out marginal solutions in the hope that something will come along and solve these problems?

Or, and I suspect this is more likely, does this strategy simply buy time to lurch from one election to another, with the objective of remaining in power rather than to find a permanent and sustainable solution. 

And here is the problem. I simply do not see the range of solutions being offered as sufficiently robust to accommodate the scale of growth Australia must accommodate this century.

Urban consolidation is all well and good but it is simply not possible to add three million people to Melbourne's existing urban footprint. Even if it were technically possible, the citizenry wouldn't accept it. (Although I suppose there is the option of enforcing compliance to urban consolidation laws using a special squad of enforcers.)

Water savings and renewable energy make a great contribution to the efficient operation of our cities as long as the rate of urban growth is not too vigorous or long-lasting. And that's the issue. Australia will be an immigrant nation for our lifetime and for the lifetime of our grandchildren.

What this nation needs is a frank and robust debate about options for population and urban growth on a grand scale and over the long term.

In this debate I'd put hard questions on the table such as the option of constructing metropolitan dams and nuclear power stations.

Also on the table would be the option of curtailing migration and lessening the stresses and strains on the urban system. If Australia is to lead the world in urban planning, surely the place to start is an open an honest debate about options for the future management of that growth.

Bernard Salt is a KPMG partner

[e-mail]  

twitter.com/bernardsalt