Commenting on the article: ‘Less than half’: Premier hints at Sam Smith tourism costs
If the opposition is grasping at straws why not clear the issue and tell the public the cost and also show us the actual net gain from influencers? Or is the government grasping at those straws?  – Werner Langer

Why spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars promoting a singer and then limit the event to 300? I bet Tim Minchin didn’t cost nearly as much, and we all had the opportunity to see him for free in Elder Park, which was a great event with a far better public outcome than this Sam Smith debacle. SA Tourism dropped the ball on this one, no matter how clever they think they were. It’s a loss for SA. Heck, it would have been better publicity to pay for the Hilltop Hoods to do a free public performance … at least we then would have been promoting a South Australian asset, and the money would have stayed local. – Jacob Hodgman

I am most interested in the term ‘influencers’. The Pentecostal organisation call themselves ‘Influencers’. In fact, that was the name on their building in Currie Street. Because ‘influencers’ are on social media, we need to know what they are and who they are influencing and for what purpose. Quality and appropriateness. The State Labor Government is happy for Santos to sponsor the Tour Down Under while it ‘greenwashes’ its reputation’ to suggest fossil fuels do not pollute the atmosphere. And Labor is happy to have Greg Norman’s Saudi Arabia-backed golf tournament but it is not prepared to end the fly-in-fly-out approach to health care on the APY Lands. And commercial in confidence is just so like the Liberal Party and Coalition! I find this approach questionable. – Erica Jolly

Just what is commercial confidentiality when it comes to using taxpayers’ money for the elite? Where were the public invites to the concert that they, the taxpayers, were financing? How does a show for the selected few bring in wealth for South Australia? Malinauskas has forgotten why he was elected. Transparency promise gone out the window. – Patricia Smith

Commenting on the article: Don’t end urban infill in Adelaide – do it better

Here we go again, I sincerely hope the UDIA can create a forum in which creative minds can resolve the issue of “ad-hoc infill housing” that continues to be tinkered with whenever a new government decides to implement planning changes.

Ad-hoc urban infill must be better planned. Established inner city local neighbourhoods suffer significant impacts with loss of open space (denser coverage). Street tree canopies are reduced with additional driveways and services infrastructure on the street verge. Trees of any substance can’t be planted on the majority of these developments and most ad-hoc infill developments provide one car park space or garage which is often used as storage resulting in additional pressure on street parking. The rental crisis doesn’t help with people needing to house themselves in shared accommodation increasing the number of cars pushed onto residential streets. – John Bannister

For too many suburbs, this debate has arrived too late. Land size is no longer a constraint. Unimaginative designs with no aesthetic relationship to existing homes multiply on tiny blocks. Parking and congestion seems to be ignored. Many streets have simply lost all architectural reference to the era in which they were established. Sorry, but for many of us, this is a futile debate. – John McLaren

We need to accept a couple of basic premises. Firstly our suburbs were designed for cars, and simply increasing housing density adds to congestion on roads and reduced parking space. No amount of intelligent design will eliminate this problem, along with the congestion and overload of existing services such as power, water, sewerage, Internet, gas etc. The statement “along key inner-urban corridors, on the edge of key activity centres, and in our inner-city suburbs”  remains a significant problem unless rapid transport solutions that do not add to traffic congestion, such as buses do, are not the primary form of transport. They are caught up in the inevitable increased traffic on these corridors. Factors such as decentralised employment, (which requires cars) and excessive stamp duty and agents’ fees (limiting ability to move closer to employment) provide additional barriers to reducing congestion.

The success of developments such as the old Clipsal site, and emerging developments such as Tonsley,  preserve our traditional suburbs while at the same time allow accommodation in close proximity to workplaces, and increased density. I cannot understand why building high density nodes close to shopping and rapid transport is not preferable. Anyone who has ever lived in a major city nationally or internationally understands the benefits of transport systems and by creating a hybrid high-density, with 20+ story buildings, medium density such as Brompton, and traditional suburbs creates a lifestyle choice without destroying the inherent benefit in each type of solution.

But garages too small for cars, bedrooms too small for wardrobes, no space for trees, streets clogged with parked cars, is a recipe for slums as undesirable housing is used as rental only with the loss of neighbourhood pride. – Robert Lloyd

Commenting on the article: As heatwaves and floods hit cities worldwide, these places are pioneering solutions

I simply hope our Premier reads this. I hope that all politicians hold themselves and the government responsible for making sure we in Adelaide do not lose any more of our Park lands. That we green them. So simple! – Vashti Janzen