"Prime real estate"

and therefore someone thinks it should  possibly be  built on?
Let me explain.
Our "Showgrounds", where the state's annual Royal Agricultural and Horticultural Society" show is held are on a large tract of land just outside the square mile laid out by Colonel Light  for the Central Business District.  The train runs along the edge and, a little further away, there is a tram and there are buses.
Oooh yes! Let's build houses on it. People would love to live so close to the CBD! We can move the Show somewhere else.
It would be the worst possible thing they could do for a number of reasons. 
The cost of finding another venue and then building similar facilities on it would be prohibitive. Even if they did it wouldn't work.
The grounds are used throughout the year. This year "Show" was a little early - so as to accommodate another major event. I was there not long ago to work at another major event. It is used by schools and other education facilities. It attracts world class events. All that matters.
A great deal of what goes on there happens because people can volunteer at a readily accessible venue and because  the people who attend the events can get there.
There is a building on the grounds which was finished just a few years ago. It has been designed to be entirely self-sufficient for heating, lighting and water. It attracts visitors from all over the world to look at the design. There are solar panels on almost every available roof surface. Rain water is collected and used to keep the grounds clean and green. 
Millions of dollars have been invested in all this  - and yes,  they do expect a return on the investment eventually. It has also required thousands of hours of volunteer time by the RAHS Council - people who do not get paid (unless you count the free parking permit). 
Do we really give up a piece of "prime real estate" to property developers who would want to build the maximum possible number of residences for the maximum profit? The reality is that people go to events at the Showgrounds as much because of the location as their desire to attend the event. Country people come in because, for some, it is their only trip into the city. They combine a week in the city with not just attendance at the annual event but also shopping, visits to specialists and other things they could not otherwise readily do.
It will be interesting to see what sort of outcry there is in tomorrow's paper over the suggestion made in today's  paper. I suspect that the writer was stirring the pot a little. It would however not be a good thing to give some people the wrong idea.