Capital(ist) Cities: Town Planning for the South Australian Industrial Complex
The Playford Government’s Focus on Industry, SA Housing Trust, and South Australia’s New Towns.
November 2024
DESST 3518: History Theory III
Peter Scriver, Daniel Butcher
Town planning in South Australia has been historically influenced by per-capita gains (and therefore industry), due to economic development being the primary goal of planning for modern civilisation (Wallace Van Zyl 1966, 83). Industry has a precedented place in the planning of cities and suburbs within South Australia; the town of Gawler, planned by Colonel William Light, was done as such to accommodate transport routes between Adelaide and the Port following the discovery of copper in Kapunda (Williams 1964, 195). Within the CBD itself, the Royal Automotive Association (RAA) and other automotive bodies lobbied for the removal of trams across Adelaide for the “greater good for the greater number of people” (Bonham 2006, 56). Throughout South Australia’s town planning history are two major examples: Whyalla and Elizabeth, towns booming after a desire to lead the state to new levels of industry. However, the volatility of the major industries for each town would prove to show the short-sightedness by their respective planners, and become examples of how town planning can negatively affect low-income residents without due consideration for economic change.
BHP’s City
Whyalla Allotments 1952. Red highlights dedicated public land (greenspace, schools, etc.). Blue highlights BHP property.
By author, based on M. E. Sherrah 1952, NLA 4276984.
Argued as “one of the largest publicly financed urban projects in Australia” and simultaneously founded by a private company, the once-booming industrial town of Whyalla sits 400 kilometres northwest of Adelaide (Aungles and Szelenyi 1979, 24). Spurred by then state premier Thomas Playford, the Broken Hill Proprietary Company (BHP) was convinced to start an industrial base at the once small country town. BHP had a small interest in Whyalla since the late 19th century with the original town of Hummock Hill the point from where local ore could be shipped (Rowe 1948, 176). With the expectation of World War II by 1938, a new harbour was slated for construction and gradual manufacturing need in the lead up to the War itself would result in a very quick industrialisation.
BHP was quick to advertise for relocation to Whyalla after their steelworks opened in 1965. Published booklets boasted “wide open spaces, the sunlit days, the breathtaking progress, industry on the move” (BHP 1965, 43). Planning avoided following the pattern established across the pond, with no terrace houses oriented around employment. It was to be, at the time, the ideal Australian town. BHP promised to encourage life rather than dominate, proclaiming that the working man and his family would have access to recreational facilities that would enhance “the fabric of life” (BHP 1965, 43).
After the Industrial Revolution, planners were concerned with utopian ideals of industrialisation in a suburb setting, and Company Towns emerged; New Lanark, Scotland in the 1810s, the railroad town of Pullman, America in the 1870s, and even in Australia with the State Electricity Commission (SEC)’s Yallourn, Victoria in the 1920s. Two approaches were coined: “Industrial Edens” and “Satanic Mills” (Green 2011). Edens aimed to give employees modern housing and leisure opportunities making the town’s residents more amenable to living in an industrial setting. On the contrary, Mills focused entirely on maximising potential profit.
The Company Town
Yallourn 1954. Red highlights dedicated public land. Notice the organisation around central public facilities, with a large green band in the southeast, similar to Whyalla’s green zone in the same location.
By author, based on SEC Architect A. R. Le Gerche, 1954.
Parallels can be made between the SEC’s Yallourn and BHP’s Whyalla. Both towns followed the Garden City trend of the early 20th century, allocating space for “a combination of town and country life”; Yallourn and Whyalla would merge contemporary planning with the ideals of the working man, where open space could alleviate the industrial nature of the Company Town (Fletcher 2013, 50; Garnaut 2000, 47). The SEC owned housing for its employees, directly influenced town politics and even owned the local general store. Similarly, BHP would contribute to the landscape architecture of Whyalla, deciding what plants and where, and (much like the SEC) created a positive brand image by sponsoring community events (BHP Industrial Sun 90). Under sponsored housing schemes, employees could purchase “residences of pleasing design” (Rowe 1948, 179). Unlike Yallourn, it was the South Australian Housing Trust (SAHT) that would encourage immigrant workers to move to Whyalla by providing 7,000 “decent homes” through “state encouraged private industrialisation” (Aungles and Szelenyi 1979, 27). The state government would, without any significant investment from BHP, build a community and leisure centre along with 25 schools, extended water services, and a campus for the South Australian Institute of Technology (now the University of South Australia).
Semi-Detached Trust Homes, Whyalla, 1945. SLSA B 63660.
Residents of Yallourn described the SEC as “employer, landlord and governor”; this sentiment would be repeated 30 years later by residents of Whyalla. Under such direct BHP influence, Whyalla was doomed to struggle forming a cohesive sense of community due to the revolving door of disgruntled workers, and sharp increases in Whyalla’s population without accommodation of more community and leisure facilities (Aungles 1979, 38). In a 1968 report on Whyalla’s existing social problems, Jim Munro stated that “businesses and industries in Whyalla are essentially satellites of B.H.P. In many instances, the relationship between the giant and its satellite is such that if the giant sneezes, the satellite dies of pneumonia” (Munro 1968).
By the mid-70s, local shipbuilding grew uncompetitive with the rest of the world, and the new Liberal federal government ceased subsidies that were offsetting BHP’s poor performance (Aungles and Szelenyi 1979, 29). BHP aimed to close the steelworks, with the state government estimating a population reduction of 8,000 residents from the existing 30,000. With 70% of Whyalla’s residents living in housing provided by the SAHT, the government needed the population level to be maintained to avoid building public housing elsewhere in the state, and to ensure proper utilisation of public facilities and services the government had invested so much in. The expectation from both federal and state experts was that Whyalla’s population would experience a gradual decline after the steelworks closure as residents left to pursue new employment (Aungles and Szelenyi 1979, 30). However, skilled workers previously employed by BHP had learnt to live with the difficulties of residing in a rural town and chose to stay in Whyalla, maintaining the connections they had developed over the years. In parallel, the concentration of public housing was not matched elsewhere in South Australia, and those who needed a place to live would move to the easily-available Trust homes in Whyalla, rather than wait years to be homed around Adelaide, regardless of local employment opportunity.
And So The Giant Sneezed
Could Whyalla’s trend towards a ‘welfare town’ have been mitigated? Perhaps. In keeping with comparisons to Yallourn, the SEC decided in favour of profits and designated the town as a new open-pit coal mine and power station in 1960 (Buchanan and Mackay 2018, 88). The domination by a single company led to the residents being uprooted to make way for industry, and the Yallourn of the 30s ceased to exist. Whyalla’s dependence on BHP to maintain a local employment base, despite being a company that followed stop-go policy, would inevitably result in what ended up occurring in the late 70s. It may have been unfortunate this did not occur sooner – 15 years prior, another Playford initiative was began to similarly encourage South Australia’s industrial growth.
After World War II a large increase in housing supply was necessary to accommodate the new wave of immigrants into South Australia, and the government’s eye was on the northern Adelaide Plains. Outer urban expansion was limited due to Adelaide’s position between sea and hills, leaving only north and south. Initial suburban growth around Adelaide in the late 19th century lead to a landscape scattered with agricultural ventures, particularly in the rural south (McGreevy 2017, 215). The north provided to be the obvious answer, with an abundance of cheap land and accessible water supply (Marsden 2000, 53). The New Town of Elizabeth resulted from an effort to draw international industry to South Australia; in the words of premier Playford, Elizabeth “arose out of the housing shortage and the promotion of industrialisation” (Marsden 2000, 53). Elizabeth was to be a satellite town, and New Town planning was the way forward.
The New Town of Elizabeth
Frederick Gibberd’s Harlow, England 1952.
One of the first examples of New Town thinking 1954. Each residential zone had its own major centre. Grey marks areas of industrial use.
By author, based on Frederick Gibberd, 1953.
Unlike the New Towns that were being planned in Britain, where a corporation would be formed to develop independently, Elizabeth was a nation-first venture by the SAHT under a state program to increase urbanisation (Marsden 2000, 53). British-trained Architect Henry Smith drew on his experience with town planning in England when designing the layout of Elizabeth. Housing would be divided by class, and a higher proportion of the town dedicated to industry. Architect Geoff Shedley was designing South Australia’s first shopping and civic centre. Ahead of its time, the Salisbury council and state government would provide the state’s first free library.
Aerial view of Elizabeth’s town centre, c. 1964.
John Martin & Co., SLSA BRG 121/1/578.
Contradictory to New Town planning, Elizabeth initially provided little in terms of industry and employment, relying on the Weapons Research Establishment in Salisbury and existing employment opportunities in the neighbouring northern suburbs. Alex Ramsay, the general manager of SAHT, was the key protagonist in merging New Town ideals with the state’s desire for growing industrialisation, tasked with drawing business to Elizabeth. International automotive company General Motors Holden (GMH), by the late 1950s, would build a factory in Elizabeth to complement their existing factory in Woodville after negotiation with Playford and Ramsay (Dean and Broomhill 2018, 167). Even though by that time the SAHT had already drawn some foreign companies to Elizabeth, such that 19 factories were constructed by 1966, the mere scale of GMH would reorient Elizabeth from following closely to New Town doctrine to focusing on accommodating South Australia’s new industrial growth (Bolleter 2018, 44). Industrial zones were enlarged, and the town’s scale grew to double its original size. Despite Elizabath’s growth, no member of the town’s development team would foresee the global economic changes in the 1970s that would lead to deindustrialisation across the nation, and in their new suburb in particular.
New Town of Elizabeth, 1965.
Each residential zone has its own centre and large industry areas.
By author, based on Forster and McCaskill 1986, 87.
In some cases it could be stated that Elizabeth suffered by being conceptualised too early. At the time the town started to be planned in 1954, New Towns were still new concepts, and therefore Elizabeth inherited the pitfalls of the original “Mark 1” towns. These towns were low-density, which was criticised as being “too suburban in character”, and indeed Elizabeth received similar comments from architect Robin Boyd, who stated that the SAHT “calculated with all the science in its command a balanced reflection of the average Australian taste” (Marsden 2000, 55). New Towns also assumed that any residents would align with the ideals of spatial planning, however with the incorporation of public housing facilities in Elizabeth, it was unlikely that residents dependant on welfare would ensure “proper uses of space” (Peel 1992, 2). It's possible Elizabeth could have benefitted from the conception of new “Mark 2” towns in the late 60s, which aligned with a growing influence of motor transport on town planning strategies. Approaches transitioned from boundary-limited satellite cities to regional areas with opportunity for future growth. Grid-like networks encourage freedom of movement for both vehicles and pedestrians while allowing for future developments, and strict neighbourhood lines were exchanged for plans that allowed for a distribution of function (Jolley 2019, 4).
Too Soon, Elizabeth
Cumbernauld, Scotland, c. 1960.
A Mark 2 New Town, eliminating neighbourhood zones.
By author, based on Cumbernauld Development Commission, 1955.
Similarly, Whyalla’s problematic decline, which would happen almost 15 years after Elizabeth’s conception, could have provided valuable precedent for the organisation of housing throughout the town and potentially avoided the emphasis on a single industry. However, the decreased power of the SAHT would turn them into a predominately welfare housing agency (in line with the federal government’s approach to housing policy at the time) which would have more than likely resulted in significantly less public housing to begin with (Paris, Williams and Stimson 1985, 107). Residential inequality was already starting to become an issue in Elizabeth, where “companies could purchase better-quality homes for higher-rank employees” (Peel 1992, 19). Semi-detached rentals were tucked away in crescents and courts to allow for freestanding homes to line the main streets and keep up the town’s appearance. These rentals were specifically designed to be “very modest” – Ramsay argued that as they were being housed for workers, when those workers gradually moved up the ladder they would move to a better home (Jones 1972, 24). Planners used elevated hills for “better class” homes, leaving the flat plain for the Trust’s housing. The beginning of a global recession, coupled with phasing out old protectionist policies in favour of deregulation would lead to closure of 11 out of 21 factories in the original New Town plan, including GMH (Dean and Broomhill 2018, 169). As with Whyalla, the high concentration of those dependant on public housing meant only high-earning workers could afford to find new homes elsewhere. Furthermore, the increased unemployment exacerbated inequality. It “appears as a spatial problem” in New Towns due to the concentration of the groups of people – in Elizabeth’s case, the concentration of welfare housing (Jones and Stilwell 1983, 17).
Both Whyalla and Elizabeth are examples of the South Australian government trying to accommodate the industrialisation of the state with public housing facilities in growing towns. Each town’s dependence on industries that follow ‘stop-go’ policies (chasing profits) leads to the development of ‘welfare towns’ due to the nature of satellite town planning – peripheral locations, limited economic base, and in both Whyalla and Elizabeth’s case, the concentration of public housing. It should be stated that both Whyalla and Elizabeth having these high concentrations was likely a side effect of the SAHT having increased power in the years these towns were conceptualised under the Playford government (Forster 1986, 9). The large number of residents dependant on public housing leads to the inability for said residents to relocate after the town-dependant industry opts for maximising profit. In particular, industries that favour temporary profits with low chance for longevity in the area who are offered incentive by local and state government increase the vulnerability present in satellite towns. Elizabeth’s relatively close vicinity to Adelaide likely reduced the impact of significant economic change, at least for residents who owned cars.
Learning from Whyalla and ‘Liz
Housing Trust Neighbourhood in Elizabeth Downs, c. 1950.
City of Playford History Service.
The state government would go on to learn from these towns in the planning of Monarto (Grant, Walker and Nicholls 2014, 262). An independent authority to develop housing was created to avoid being a ‘Housing Trust Town’. To reduce the effect of significant economic change, Monarto intentionally planned around “tertiary industries” as the global economy transitioned to post-industrialism (Forster 1990, 35). Rather than being reliant on a single industry (local manufacturing for both Whyalla and Elizabeth) Monarto would “have a variety of manufacturing and commercial, academic, scientific and government ventures” (Labor Leader Don Dunstan, 1974 in Walker, Grant and Nicholls 2015, 20-21). What the planning of Monarto failed to recognise, in particular from the decline of Elizabeth, was that satellite cities, upon experiencing sizable economic change, negatively affected low-income residents significantly more than other demographics due to their planned distance from the major population (Forster 1974, 24). With Monarto’s further distance to Adelaide compared to Elizabeth and no easily available public transport network, Monarto would not have the safety net Elizabeth did.
Federal support for Monarto ceased in 1976, and the project was suspended, then abandoned (Wanna 1982, 267). However, the lessons of Whyalla and Elizabeth that influenced Monarto’s planning, such as quality housing and the transition away from strict neighbourhood zones, would continue to inform town planning in South Australia. Whyalla and Elizabeth would serve as a warning of single industry towns, and their effect on employment and accessibility for the welfare-dependant.
This essay was written for the 3rd year undergraduate course History Theory III, with a word limit of 2500, and was the final assessment submitted for my Bachelor degree.
References (and good reading list).
Aungles, Stan. 1979. “The Social Consequences of Industrial Development and Decline.” The Journal of Australian Political Economy no. 4: 38-53. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/ielapa.800219978
Aungles, Stan and Ivan Szelenyi. 1979. “Structural Conflicts Between the State, Local Government and Monopoly Capital – The Case of Whyalla in South Australia. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology 15: 24-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/144078337901500104
Bolleter, Julian. 2018. “Decentralisation Fever.” In The Ghost Cities of Australia, edited by Julian Bolleter. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89896-4_3
Bonham, Jennifer. 2006. “Constructions of mobility in post WWII Adelaide.” South Australian Geographical Journal 105: 51-59. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/ielapa.200707115
Broken Hill Proprietary Company (BHP). 1965. Steel in the Sun: Commemorating the Official Opening of the Steelworks at Whyalla, South Australia. BHP.
Buchanan, Thomas C. and Thomas A. Mackay. 2018. “B.H.P.’s ‘Place in the Industrial Sun’: Whyalla in its Golden Age”. Journal of Australian Studies 42, no. 1: 85-100. https://doi.org/10.1080/14443058.2017.1389765
Dean, Mark and Ray Broomhill. 2018. “From post-fordism to ‘post-holdenism’: Responses to deindustrialisation in Playford, South Australia.” The Journal of Australian Political Economy no. 81: 166-192. https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/ielapa.812259873628514
Fletcher, Meredith. 2013. Digging Up People For Coal: A History of Yallourn. Melbourne University Press. ISBN: 052286354X
Forster, Clive. 1974. “The journey to work and a satellite town: the cautionary tale of Elizabeth.” Australian Geographical Studies 12: 3-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8470.1974.tb00299.x
Forster, Clive. 1986. “Economic Restructuring, Urban Policy and Patterns of Deprivation in Adelaide.” Australian Planner 24, no. 1: 6-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.1986.9657289
Forster, Clive. 1990. “The South Australian New Cities Experience: Elizabeth, Monarto and Beyond.” Australian Planner 28, no. 3: 31-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.1990.9657470
Forsynth, Ann and Richard Peiser. 2021. “Overview of New Towns in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries.” In New Towns for the Twenty-First Century: A Guide to Planned Communities Worldwide, edited by Ann Forsynth and Richard Peiser. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN: 9780812297317
Garnaut, Christine. 2000. “Towards metropolitan organisation: town planning and the garden city idea.” In The Australian Metropolis: A Planning History, edited by Stephen Hammet and Robert Freestone. Spon Press. ISBN: 0419258000
Grant, James, Paul Walker and David Nichols. 2014. “What’s it all about, Monarto?” Planning History Conference 2014: 255-270. https://doi.org/10.25916/5c2825e19243b
Green, Hardy. 2011. The Company Town: The Industrial Edens and Satanic Mills That Shaped the American Economy. Basic Books. ISBN: 780465018260
Jolley, Victoria. 2019. “The Rural Super City.” SHS Web of Conferences 63: Article 05003. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20196305003
Jones, M. A. 1972. Housing and Poverty in Australia. Melbourne University Press. ISBN: 0522840221
Jones, Evan and Frank Stilwell. 1983. “When is an Urban Problem not an Urban Problem?” In Social process and the city, edited by Peter Williams. George Allen and Unwin Australia. ISBN: 0868612375
Marsden, Susan. 2000. “The South Australian Housing Trust, Elizabeth and Twentieth Century Heritage.” Journal of the Historical Society of South Australia no. 28: 49-61. https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/ielapa.200105432
McGreevy, M. 2017. “Suburban growth in Adelaide, South Australia, 1850-1930: speculation and economic opportunity.” Urban History 44, no. 2: 208-230. https://doi.org/10.1017/S096392681600047X
Munro, Jim L. 1968.Whyalla Social Problems Report. New York State University.
Paris, Charles, Peter Williams and Bob Stimson. 1985. “From Public Housing to Welfare Housing.” Australian Journal of Social Issues 20, no. 2: 105-117. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1839-4655.1985.tb00794.x
Peel, Mark. 1992. “Planning the Good City in Australia: Elizabeth as a New Town.” Urban Research Program Working Paper no. 30. https://doi.org/10.4225/13/590a52038668c
Rowe, J. B. 1948. “Whyalla … a study of geography in the making.” Australian Geographer 5, no. 7: 176-182. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049184808702267
Walker, Paul, Jane Grant and David Nichols. 2015. “Monarto’s Contested Landscape.” Landscape Review 16, no. 1: 20-35. https://doi.org/10.34900/lr.v16i1.864
Wallace Van Zyl, F. D. 1966. “Regional Planning in South Australia.” The Town Planning Review 37, no. 2: 83-94. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40102501
Wanna, John. 1982. “Urban Planning under Social Democracy – The Case of Monarto, South Australia.” The Australian Quarterly 54, no. 3: 260-270. https://doi.org/10.2307/20635178
Williams, Michael. 1964. “Gawler: the changing geography of a South Australian country town.” Australian Geographer 9, no. 4: 195-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049186408702422