1. I found the concept of Australia being ‘the most suburban country’ in the world not exactly a new idea that I had to get my head around, but one that made me think more about what makes up the country that Australia is. One thing we have ample amounts of in Australia is space, and space that is hardly ever contested over. Therefore, the way in which our cities and urban sprawl can expand outwards is seemingly an easy thing to achieve.

    If there is space, really anywhere in Australia has the ability to be turned into a new town.

    The main reason for this is because of the amount of land that is undeveloped in Australia. We have a population density of three people per km, which to put into context means we have the fourth lowest density in the world (only Greenland, Mongolia and Namibia are in front of us). This then indicates just how much land there is that can be developed onto and be lived on in Australia, and also gives question as to why it hasn’t been built upon yet?

    The mention of transport in this weeks blog post by Roger intrigued me, as it made the point that because of the automobile it meant that longer commutes were possible and as the cars grew more popular they also increased in speed and comfort. Therefore, what this led to was the fact that people could move further away from their places of work and still be able to travel there in the same time as it did previously. But this made me think, has transport in fact halted the development of suburbia in Australia?

    I say this because seemingly, the only way we can legitimately continue the sprawl of Australia is though the development of more viable transport options and infrastructure. As if the idea of ‘spreading out’ instead of ‘building up’ is still seen as the right way to go, then this development of transport must happen in order for people to want to live in these outer ‘cities’, especially in NSW.

    #S208UOW17 #Tut3

  2. In terms of development, Western countries have followed in one another’s footsteps. With industrialism, jobs were city based so it makes sense that people were focused around the cities. It does also make sense that, when people began having families, they wanted a more natural space to bring up children away from the city in a safer, healthier environment. The move to build homes on the land between cities and rural areas and form “the suburbs” settled in quickly with the nuclear family model. Husbands worked, wives looked after the family and home and kids had a natural environment in which to grow up. For the needs at that time, suburbia was a fit environment for the family model.
    Since the 1950’s, however, there have been great shifts in the family mode. There are still many nuclear families that exist, however with factors such as sexuality and culture still changing, so too is the family structure. Most predominantly is the development of the feminist movement and women’s rights, meaning that women can be just as self-sufficient and stable with or without men. Rates of divorce are at an all-time high, causing broken families, and differing socio-economic factors means families are more scattered. Modern society now needs a city structure that suits the new needs of families and more developed infrastructure. For example, the commute from the Western suburbs to the city and back is almost doubling in time at peak hours due to congestion. How will the government address these problems?
    #SOC208 #Tut3 #Wed14.30

Comments are closed.