This paper reviews recent research on the changing spatial structure of Australia's major cities from the early 1990s, concentrating on (a) the location of employment and journey to work patterns, (b) the changing nature of housing, and (c) patterns of residential differentiation and disadvantage. The paper argues that the 1990s was a watershed decade during which some taken-for-granted aspects of Australian urban character experienced significant change. It then examines the latest generation of strategic planning documents for these major metropolitan areas, all published between 2002 and 2005, and argues that there is a mismatch between the strategies' consensus view of desirable future urban structure, based on containment, consolidation and centres , and the complex realities of the evolving urban structures. In particular, the current metropolitan strategies do not come to terms with the dispersed, suburbanised nature of much economic activity and employment and the environmental and social issues that flow from that, and they are unconvincing in their approaches to the emerging issues of housing affordability and new, finer-grained patterns of suburban inequality and disadvantage. Overall, the paper contends that current metropolitan planning strategies suggest an inflexible, over-neat vision for the future that is at odds with the picture of increasing geographical complexity that emerges from recent research on the changing internal structure of our major cities.

No abstract

This paper is a prelude to a theme issue in 2003 on Australasian city and regional problems and policies. It considers the impact of economic restructuring on the level of inequality and disadvantage within Australian cities. Evidence is presented that Australian cities have become more unequal over the past two decades and this greater level of inequality has found concrete expression within the built environment. These patterns of inequality are distinct to Australia. It is argued that the Australian Government's reliance on tightly targeted income support policies and market-based solutions to economic disadvantage has contributed greatly to the concentration of low income and vulnerable households within certain sections of Australian cities.

This paper presents the results of a detailed survey into the reasons for the spate of mergers between Geography and Environment Studies that took place in Australian universities from 1989 to 1999. The results, from a 1998 survey, suggest that the development of a symbiotic relationship between the two areas of study is merely a veneer masking a complexity of underlying factors. These include financial reasons, internal university politics, staff changes and mobility, and only in some cases, a genuine academic rationale for a merger. The paper concludes that the superficial appearance of a symbiosis between Geography and Environment Studies generally masks an opportunistic pragmatism which is very site specific in its complexity. The result has been a series of departmental mergers which, although providing a firmer financial footing, raise questions about the academic implications for the development of both study areas as we move into the third millennium.

No abstract