Comments by "Helmuth Schultes" (@helmuthschultes9243) on "American Reacts to Monarto SA - The Ghost Town That Became a Wildlife Sanctuary" video.

  1. Among sources of failure of such decentralised city development are lack of suitable work opportunities. As there are no people and infrastructure there a few businesses established offering work. As agriculture in immediate area suffered from acquisitions, also less farm work. Thus without long cummute people will not move there having virtually no income possibility. The road connection not ideal, at the time was near the main highway from Victoria to SA, but then from memory still a one lane each way. Since then turned into a multilane split highway/freeway. Also a rail line passes there but no developed rail yards, so industry to establish faced costly truck transport, either to Adelaide or a long distance to Melbourne with larger harbour, transport structure and population. Adelaide had/has lesser harbour, not deep water for larger ships and already much less industry. Further Monarto would have been totally dependant on pumped water from Murray River, which is water originating from Vic, NSW and Qld. Already a major source of irrigation water all along that river system and for Adelaide city water needs severely depleting it, to the point of destroying coastal wet lands and even losing flow to ocean entirely Adelaide itself has little storage reservoir capacity as the hills are smallish, land otherwise is very flat. Catchment and resulting water storages are shallow and limited capacity Inland from coast, Monarto area is also rather flat, as seen in aerial views of this video, some rolling low undulation/ hills. Yet beyond the hills, north-south behind Adelaide there is much decreased rain, as prevailing weather hits the hills behind Adelaide dropping most rain at the coastal strip. So as seen the land is basically best suited as dry steppes country like central Africa, so suited to this widelife reserve. People also would have been living in a dry and often hot place well away from popular coastal beaches and swimming. So quite a few serious issues to get population to move there. As generally evident by Australian population concentrating on coastal areas, other than a few specific inland towns and cities, concentrated around farming, with sheep, cattle, wool, or crops whether grains, wheat, rice (irrigation big water demand) , fruit and irrigation, making much of that possible too. Some localised mining. Else some river tied locations, so few people move inland. Again other than local needed small scale industries there is little major industry inland, as transport costs become prohibitive. I am not an expert in development, but even without special knowledge could predict such plans wete heading to disaster and failure. Have a look at USA cities, where these are located in the main, consider what the core function of each such is and what reasons they exist. Originally east coast built up, then some spread into inland forming farming communities that grew as many small towns. Inland cities established on rivers, with boat and barge capacities. Especially the Mississippi where still other than coastal, or Great Lakes area the main largest cities have grown. Yes there are specific larger cities and huge numbers of once tiny farm communities that have now become moderate towns and cities. Basically developed in times when people were locally dependant with limited outside support. Modern transport and world business not involved. Other major centres developed along former wagontrain trails, as populations moved west, establishing more and more farming centres. Establishing railroads also caused major centres to sprout up along the way supporting the railroad, farming needs etc. GOLD that caused major rush to what now is California where on the whole, population forms on coastal areas holds to this day. See how many new cities are sprouting now, few I think you will find, except in special cases around specific industries.
    1