Developing an argument for suburban renewal.

(From Canberra Times)

T HE current debate about the Government's ''residential-core- area'' policy might be helped by a dispassionate summary of the pros and cons of that and alternative policies. Some would argue that the policy: (a)protects Canberra's bush capital/garden city character, by confining higher-density development to a small part of each suburb (the ''residential core area'', the remainder of the suburb being the ''suburban area''); (b)meets the wishes of suburban-area residents who want to retain the area's ''single-storey-house-on-a-quarter-acre- block'' character; (c)enables more people to live close to commercial/shopping centres, reducing dependence on car travel and contributing to the viability of local shopping centres.

But some residential-core-area residents would also like to see their area retain its ''single-storey-house-on-a-quarter-acre block'' character, unsullied by development.

And some would question the benefits claimed for the residential-core- area policy.

For example, dual occupancy/townhouse/apartment development throughout the suburb wouldn't damage our bush capital/garden city status - which depends on Canberra's surrounding hills and tree- lined streets and other public places. Moreover, dispersal of development throughout the suburb would still leave at least 50 per cent of each developed block available for (compulsory) landscaping.

And as for the so-called benefit of retaining the ''single-storey-house-on-a- quarter-acre-block'' character of suburbs, many would query that philosophy, given that people's housing needs are continually changing. Also, some would question the equity of a policy that arbitrarily affects the residential amenity of different people in the same suburb in different ways; or allows some to develop their properties to meet their housing needs but not others; or arbitrarily sends property values for some people up, and others down.

As for the claimed benefits of more people living close to shopping centres, query whether that would result in less car travel; people travel to more places than shopping centres, and moving closer to a shopping centre puts people further away from other destinations. So query whether the policy will really contribute to the viability of local shopping centres.