Talk:Multifunction Polis

	Australia portal Multifunction Polis is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Adelaide (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Urban studies and planning Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Multifunction Polis was copied or moved into Garden Island (South Australia) with this edit on 00:46, 5 February 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Alternative Spellings

There are many alternative spellings for the Multifunction Polis. There is 'Multi-Function Polis' (with & without the hyphen, sometimes with 2 hyphens), 'Multifunctional Polis' is often used, 'MFP Adelaide', among many others. There are references using all these alternatives. Redirects have been set up for the alternate spellings. Lester 21:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No coatrack

Some Wikipedians have been adding and removing a coatrack tag to this article. Can we have a discussion here?

I don't believe this article needs a coatrack tag. It is quite true that objections were raised to the MFP on racial, as I see it racist, grounds. To say so does not make this article a coatrack. I don't believe the article promotes racism or says the criticisms were justified. Perhaps the tone of the article could be improved by more discussion of the economic grounds for its cancellation, but that does not invalidate a discussion of facts.

Andrew Peacock's opposition was particularly cynical. He quite clearly said, during an election campaign, that if he elected he would cancel the MFP, because it would "establish an enclave" that would be "socially divisive". So much for economics!

As a community, in general and in Wikipedia, I think we should shine a light on unfounded racism rather than censor it or ignore it.

The MFP *failed* because it was a white elephant, overambitious, and not viable once the Japanese economy hit a recession in the 1990s, and not because of the racist criticism. The article should say so. But criticism there was, and the article should say that too.

Please, what's a BLP?

Paul Foxworthy (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Paul. I agree with all the points you raised and share your concerns. This edit war has been continuing for many months now, with zero discussion. By the way, "BLP" stands for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Regards, --Lester 13:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. However you look at it the MFP generated considerable debate and opposition at the time. The article seems balanced to me. I'm removing the tag. --JQ (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for rejecting MFP

As a resident of Adelaide at the time this project was in place, I find certain comments attributed to Denis Gastin rather limited.

The article makes no mention of the extensive soil contamination or other issues that contributed greatly to project delays. Resistance to the proposal was not exclusively on concerns about an enclave, but to the millions spent on salaries for several years while no work commenced on the proposed site at all.

In fact, the project was near its demise before any effort began on soil reclamation.

Unfortunately, I have no clippings from the Adelaide Advertiser which discussed this matter, nor do I retain the Geography lecture noties from the day that the MFP media team came to discuss the environmental benefits.

I believe that the Multifunction Polis article woudl benefit from appropriate referenced information about these matters.

--Hermride (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be mentioned that the idea was never going to work due to the close proximity of Parafield Airport with its thousands of training flights each day. They would have, or must have, known that Parafield has the capacity to have one noisy low flying plane movement per minute. How anybody could have ever believed that people pay top dollar for high quality premises in a multifunction polis when there is back to back noise and air pollution from aviation fumes, remains a mystery. In all those years since when millions are spent to reduce noise by planes that frequent the big airports no effort has been made to phase out the extensively noisy planes from the flying schools at Parafield. We nearly bought a house in Mawson Lakes, thank goodness we did not because in the last six years the noisy planes have become more and more. As we are on the outer perimeter of the flying paths (which were then not published), we are subjected more and more. When you look at the real estate section in the paper, plenty of houses in Mawson Lakes are for sale; people tend not to stay. What a waste of money the multifunction polis was.

144.136.192.70 (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current status

This section needs to be improved. It reads like a real estate ad at the moment. I presume the water for toilets and garden is recycled, as all urban areas have reticulated water for these uses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.52.253 (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]