Global competition will become more and more a competition amongst global urban regions and the fight to be in that team or not is already a very prominent one. All over the world cities are preparing to maximise their performance to meet the requirements for global operation. In Western Europe there is only room for 4 or 5 urban regions in that team so the competition amongst European cities is a very hard one. On the fifth continent Sydney has less competitors, although Australia has to be very aware not to take that position in the whole of this hemisphere for granted.

Some characteristics of Globalization are:

• a service-oriented economy
• financial centre
• strong communication networks
• logistical hub
• reurbanizing population
• shift to an international oriented, highly educated population,

• a pleasant urban atmosphere
• international cultural quality
• high standard of urban facilities
• a high and diverse mixture of job opportunities
• a good environmental quality
• good public transport
• a.s.o.

All global cities I know rely strongly on the interaction between their inner cities, as their cultural and economic centre and their airports as their "gateway to the world". Those "in-between-areas" are becoming the most strategic weapons in the international economic and cultural competition and are treated very consciously, not only by the cities themselves but maybe even more by their national governments (Paris, Frankfurt, Milan, Amsterdam). Special development strategies are adopted to optimise the (future) potentials. Those countries use - and sometimes develop - their planning instruments to prepare for the future.

That area, by all means, looks like a prototype of such a strategic development opportunity. Its orientation, its seize, its high-quality connections. No wonder it is in transition: outdated use becomes obsolete and new, forceful and beneficiary uses are merely waiting for the right conditions to be triggered.

It looks however that, because of the fragmented landownership all sorts of fragmented development options will ruin the potentials of the area and will thus leave Sydney empty handed. It looks to me the Corporation tries to knit these fragments to a somewhat physically coherent urban area and that is too little. It is missing the chance of Sydney’s lifetime. Fragments should be looked upon to get the highest possible synergy and that synergy can only become visible in a strategic study for the whole of greater Sydney. And that study has to take into account all relevant scales (in space and time) at the same time. One should be aware of Australia’s position in the world and the role Sydney can or has to play. In the present situation, for the coming two or three years as well as for the coming 30 years. The strategic position of the area in the urban body as well as the quality of existing residential neighbourhoods and (developments in) social characteristics.

Such a strategic plan for the whole area will by no means overrule the interests of the different landowners. On the contrary, it is to a high degree in their own interest. The value of their land and what is going to be built on it will be much higher when a synergetic development can be realised. So it would be wise for them to stick together with the public bodies to try to achieve that one plan.

There should be a development program, based on economic, demographic and cultural projections and objectives.

There should be a thorough survey of the (technical) nature of the area.

What I see happening now (but I may be wrong, I’m just new here) is that all sorts of architectural plans are being made without a clear philosophy of what we want this area to be. Programmatic decisions are taken on very weak and sometimes very shortsighted considerations. The technical nature of the area is neglected or disfigured by architectural hobbies. There is no idea of the type or amount of traffic affecting the area and generated by the area itself.

There is a lot of pragmatism in the present drawing-up-of-plans (which is not quite the same as "planning"!) but unfortunately it’s the wrong type of pragmatism. I was serious when I said it’s too early to rely on architects. A lot of work has still to be done before they can start translating an urban development strategy in an architectural idiom.

I wonder if it is possible to arrange a stronger co-operation with Landlease. They are the greatest landowner, they are well equipped and have a clear goal: to maximise the public revenues. If they agree to work with the Corporation on a synergetic plan the other landowners might decide to join and than we have the mechanism, based on common interest.

In Amsterdam we publish a "program for urban investments" each year. It is based on the general structure- plan and stipulates how and where and to what amount the city will invest in land-clearance, infrastructure, facilities a.s.o. in order to meet the goals of that structure plan. We publish that plan to inform other investors (private, but also Central Government or non-commercial investors) about our priorities. We aim to join forces with those other investors in order to avoid loss of energy and to reach the optimal effect of the joint investments.

The program is based on macro-economic scenarios derived from institutions such as OECD, WORLBANK and IMF. At the same time we interview Amsterdam based company’s such as ABN-AMRO, PHILIPS, ING, SHELL, KLM, the STOCK-EXCHANGE, SCHIPHOL-AIPORT, KPMG etc. about their expectations. This creates a good understanding between public and private, commercial and non-commercial investors and the climate of credibility we gain with that enables us to do business effectively.

Maybe such a joint effort is possible for the South Sydney Area as well.