A plan without a source of revenue is no plan at all

I WAS interested to read (GCB 15/8) that Gecko have drawn a comparison between The Spit and Southbank in Brisbane.

Southbank is a classic example of development potential being realised on adjoining mixed-use sites to provide the revenue to create a world-class park.

As it stands, The Spit masterplan process is heading towards a wish list of public works including park improvements totalling tens of millions of dollars, with no realistic means of paying for any of it. Where is the money going to come from to implement these works?

It is also surprising to read about a concern for the economic viability of a cruise ship terminal when no such concerns have been raised in relation to tens of millions of dollars worth of other public realm improvements suggested during workshops for The Spit masterplan.

A sensible balance of economically viable development and public realm improvements can be achieved through a “Southbank” approach, where a win-win outcome can be achieved. A plan without a source of revenue to pay for public works is not a plan.