Housing Developments | Northern Suburbs

[rev]

My point? Why complain about it?
You aren't being forcibly relocated to a new development in the north...or are you?

Every time there's a new housing development, someone yells omg sprawl yuck. It's like another nimby syndrome.

And it's hardly suburban hell. Two Wells barely has 700 residents. The development will double it.

We all want Adelaide to grow, for the population to increase...where do you guys think these extra people are going to live? In shoe boxes in the city?
Adelaide's suburbs aren't going to suddenly turn into medium density.
It's going to take decades for a change like that to happen in an ultra conservative place like Adelaide.

Or should we put up a sign at Adelaide Airport and border crossing roads, saying "Sorry, we are closed to new arrivals until 2050"

Eventually Adelaide's boundary will stretch to Two Wells, and it will just be another suburb. But by the time that happens most of us will be in nursing homes or pretty close.
Our geography leaves us with little option but to expand to the north.
It's inevitable.

[monotonehell]

My point? Why complain about it?
You aren't being forcibly relocated to a new development in the north...or are you?

Every time there's a new housing development, someone yells omg sprawl yuck. It's like another nimby syndrome.

And it's hardly suburban hell. Two Wells barely has 700 residents. The development will double it.

We all want Adelaide to grow, for the population to increase...where do you guys think these extra people are going to live? In shoe boxes in the city?
Adelaide's suburbs aren't going to suddenly turn into medium density.
It's going to take decades for a change like that to happen in an ultra conservative place like Adelaide.

Or should we put up a sign at Adelaide Airport and border crossing roads, saying "Sorry, we are closed to new arrivals until 2050"

Eventually Adelaide's boundary will stretch to Two Wells, and it will just be another suburb. But by the time that happens most of us will be in nursing homes or pretty close.
Our geography leaves us with little option but to expand to the north.
It's inevitable.

I think you missed Messia's point. He's not against the existence of suburbia, he's against this form of development.

Sure people who live in the suburbs need a car to get out of the suburb (to go to work etc), but why continue to create suburbs where each house is an inaccessible island set in a sea of other houses? A lot of suburbs have no nearby amenities, forcing everyone to jump in their car and drive a distance for everything, footpaths are barely walkable and in some extremes there is no footpath. Local services should be accessible by walking, as well as by car. There's plenty of examples of this kind of development.

[MessiahAndrw]

@monotonehell: Thanks for sticking up for me!

I agree with what you're saying Monotonehell. The fact that you need a car to leave your suburb or town is not a problem - the problem is you're designing it in a way that you cannot get around your own neighbourhood.

I'm living in the U.S. at the moment, and actively involved in several urbanist movements here - I frequently talk about walkability and human-scale vs. automobile-scale environments. My most recent guest post: http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2013 ... derly.html (please excuse the U.S. terminology - e.g. sidewalk vs. footpath - most of my readers are American.) Looking forward to coming back to Adelaide, so I still take a keen interest in what is going on back home!

[MessiahAndrw]

And it's hardly suburban hell.

You're right. More like suburban limbo. Not uncomfortable, yet not a rewarding place to live either.

Two Wells barely has 700 residents. The development will double it.

Exactly, it's an opportunity to double the residential population and transform the town. They should take this opportunity to turn it into something highly livable, not into Anywhere Wells.

an ultra conservative place like Adelaide.

I haven't yet lived in a place where the locals haven't said how conservative/slow-changing things are. Adelaide really isn't that bad.

[rev]

So what's the solution?

Majority of people don't want to live in apartments in the suburbs. They still want a decent(by todays standards) sized block with their own home on it.
The size of block has become smaller, so there's a few more people living within the redeveloped housing projects or infill stuff(like Westwood, Mawson Lakes and St Clair).

I think you missed Messia's point. He's not against the existence of suburbia, he's against this form of development.

This sort of development will always happen though.
If we experience a population boom, it will happen even more so. Perhaps it might even start happening in regional towns as well.

[Nathan]

So what's the solution?

Majority of people don't want to live in apartments in the suburbs. They still want a decent(by todays standards) sized block with their own home on it.
The size of block has become smaller, so there's a few more people living within the redeveloped housing projects or infill stuff(like Westwood, Mawson Lakes and St Clair).

I think you missed Messia's point. He's not against the existence of suburbia, he's against this form of development.

This sort of development will always happen though.
If we experience a population boom, it will happen even more so. Perhaps it might even start happening in regional towns as well.

This sort of development won't always happen, if planning prevents it. It will only continue to happen if we keep relaxing the belt around the urban boundaries and allow greenfield development.

Also, want /= need. There's a huge percentage of people who want houses way beyond what they actually need, and avoid smaller housing (such as terraces or apartments) because they don't think they'll fit (rather than they don't actually fit). The solution is education, and showing people not only can they live in smaller housing, but it comes with it's own set of benefits as well. That's the reason the government is serious about getting Bowden right - it'll be the used as the example of medium density of living.

[MessiahAndrw]

This sort of development will always happen though.

Suburban sprawl is among the most expensive forms to build, both as a developer and to build and maintain the infrastructure, on a per capita basis.

It exists largely as a product of regulation (modern zoning makes it hard to build anything but what they dictate - such as single family homes) and big government - small towns low-density without a strong urban core, are the most effected - they become dependent on growth in-order to pay the bills incurred by the previous generation (known as the Suburban Ponzi scheme.)

Australia hasn't had it as bad as the U.S. - which experienced white flight that hollowed out the wealth of cities to the outskirts, and a national freeway system (the Interstate) that divided neighbourhoods and made it easier to divide the gap between work and home.

Majority of people don't want to live in apartments in the suburbs. They still want a decent(by todays standards) sized block with their own home on it.

First of all, "apartments in the suburbs" is a flawed concept that will be hard to sell. Suburbia sell you with what is out the back (the yard), while urbia sells what is out the front (community life, walking distance to libraries, cafes, parks). "Apartments in the suburbs" (unless it's a very urbanized suburb) is the worst of both worlds.

If you try to sell a townhouse without a town, you're just selling a very narrow house.

When you try to achieve density in the suburbs by merely building up, you end up with the radiant city (skyscrapers in the suburbs) - also not good.

Second of all, most people don't want to live in Manhatten or Hong Kong once they start having children.

So what's the solution?

If I had to choose a form that's highly walkable and intimate, without being overwhelming (skyscrapers, wide streets) I would choose the traditional city pattern.

If that's not your taste, you can still build walkable suburbia. Think of Prospect circa 1940s/"street car suburbs". Every family gets a yard and a house, yet a densely connected street network that makes it highly walkable around a town centre (think 1940's Prospect Rd with modern amenities - a line of grocery stores, butches, hair dressers pubs, side by side.) You may still need to drive to leave your suburb, but you shouldn't have to drive to get around your own suburb.

The "smart growth" mob is trying to bring this back - think Mawson Lakes - and while they achieved a walkable density, they failed on the layout. Windy, disconnected streets that often force you to take the longest route between points.

If I were to plan out a Mawson Lakes-style development today, I would shift the train station down more into the middle, place the shops/schools ('town centre') around the station - then layout the streets in a radial pattern around the shops (the best way to encourage walking is by reducing the walking distance, which the the radial pattern is highly efficient at - the shortest path between two points is a direct line).

[monotonehell]

If you try to sell a townhouse without a town, you're just selling a very narrow house.

I like that one.

[ChillyPhilly]

A bucketload of land between Andrews Farm and Angle Vale has been rezoned from agricultural to residential. This is part of the 'Playford Extension'.

[ChillyPhilly]

Planning Minister John Rau warns ongoing urban sprawl will create ‘fringe ghettos’ as massive Roseworthy expansion is rejected

DANIEL WILLS STATE POLITICAL EDITOR THE ADVERTISER FEBRUARY 10, 2014

PLANNING Minister John Rau has warned ongoing urban sprawl will create “fringe ghettos” demanding huge taxpayer subsidy, after rejecting calls for a massive expansion of Roseworthy.

The Advertiser today revealed Mr Rau had approved further study on a plan to grow the northern township of Roseworthy by about 6000 people over about a decade.

A final rezoning decision is unlikely to be made before next year.

The township is 50km from the CBD, just north of Gawler.

The State Government’s 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide allows capacity for a 100,000-person expansion by 2040.

Mr Rau said there was no current need for such a “mega-complex”.

Opposition Leader Steven Marshall has reportedly promised to make Roseworthy a “top priority” and to do “everything we can to remove red tape to make sure that this project goes ahead”.

Mr Rau said the full-scale expansion of Roseworthy “dwarfs any other proposal that has been floating around in this state for decades”.

He said it was two and a half times the size of the Buckland Park development, which the Government was heavily criticised for approving.

Mr Rau today released new studies he said showed the cost of living on the fringe was higher for homeowners and created huge additional infrastructure costs for all taxpayers.

“The opportunity really is here for us to completely reframe the policy debate,” he said.

“The Liberal Party has made it clear that they have a 19th Century view of how the city should grow, that it should grow through endless urban sprawl.

“The proof of that pudding is in their announcement ... they would support a massive 40,000 home development in the region of Roseworthy.

“That is urban sprawl writ large.”

He said under the Government, Adelaide would “continue to grow, but it won’t grow in the sense of its footprint expanding endlessly to the north and the south”.

Mr Rau said further fringe development risked “creating basically fringe ghettos”.

“(Having) 100,000 people (at Roseworthy), it would have to be so heavily subsidised by the taxpayer to make it viable, it wouldn’t be funny,” he said.

Opposition development spokesman Vickie Chapman said the Government had wasted the time and money of the housing sector by delaying a decision on Roseworthy.

Asked what decision she would make on Roseworthy, Ms Chapman said: “It’s got to be assessed”.

“If they don’t do anything with it or they do a half-baked thing with it, then obviously we would review it on coming into government but, generally where they have approved things, we don’t go behind that because the investors have already started,” she said.

“It can create a double problem by simply saying ‘we would reverse the decision’,” she said.

Property Council of Australia SA executive director Richard Angrove said a planning focus on inner and middle Adelaide would promote vibrancy across the state.

“Adelaide City is the central hub of activity for South Australia,” he said. “South Australia’s low levels of population growth have meant expansion further north and south is largely unnecessary.

“With the surge in interest for infill and urban renewal-style development the Government is right to focus planning on our inner city and surrounds.”

Family First Senator-elect and HomesteadHomes managing director Bob Day said few people who bought houses on the urban fringe worked in the CBD.

He challenged figures in the Government studies showing it was more expensive to live in outer suburbs.

“It is infinitely cheaper to build brand new infrastructure on the fringe than try to retrofit and upgrade existing infrastructure in the inner suburbs,” he said.

Mr Day insisted urban sprawl was also better for the environment than infill.

Independent Upper House MP John Darley said he planned to introduce new legislation to ensure “secret land deals will come to an end”.

He said the move was sparked by controversy over the Gillman land deal, in which the Government offloaded the land to Adelaide Capital Partners without a tender.

“Without having a clear process, the public will remain suspicious as to whether the Government is doing the right thing or if deals are being done under the table.” he said.

“As a former chief executive of the Lands Department which was responsible for the disposal of all surplus government land, I am astounded that this sale was finalised without going to tender, public auction or even holding an expression of interest.

“This is about taxpayers getting the best value for money for their assets.”

http://www.news.com.au/national/south-a ... 6822518530

[crawf]

Continued from here
http://sensational-adelaide.com/forum/v ... &start=345

Any development on the site of the salt pans would have significant negative impacts socially, economically and environmentally - it's just a bad idea.

It will be a bad idea, if it’s poorly planned, managed and implemented.

I understand your concerns; it will be one of the most complex developments ever undertaken in this state and will need some serious expertise and private funding due to the high salinity levels and flooding concerns. However in the longer term if planned right, it will have a big positive impact on the northern suburbs.

It will do nothing to reduce car dependence (in fact will increase it)

It would no doubt increase traffic in the area, that’s a given unfortunately with most new suburban developments. However, this is where our public transport network needs to lift its game significantly. For example, high frequency bus services could run down a duplicated Elder Smith Road and connect to an expanded Mawson Lakes Interchange OR a new spur line branching off the existing Gawler line and run along the middle of the Northern Connector (Perth style). Another development could be the overhaul of Dry Creek into a much more user friendly, high frequency station and TOD.

will be quintessentially disconnected from nearby existing urban areas and centres by being cut off in all directions by roads and railways; will not promote active and healthy living and modes of transport, in particular cycling and walking between from destinations; will have a net overall impact detrimental to nearby environment catchments and ecosystems (in particular the mangroves); will not carry much if any place value and will likely contribute to an existing oversupply of new housing.

This is true. Not all of the vacant coastal land (salt pans, bolivar etc) is going to be suitable for development; however the land closest to the city should be developed. This comes even clearer when you look at the plans for the Northern Connector, which will border a large slice of vacant land between Salisbury Highway and Port Wakefield Road. It will be waste to leave this prime land vacant.

The oversupply is not 'publicised': DPTI have said that many new dwellings in newer subdivisions are bought by interstate buyers who in turn rent the properties out. There's more reasons against building on the salt pans that I can think of, but the reasons here are enough for now. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.

How is that different to any other development in SA or anywhere in Australia?,
The only difference is these homes will be 10-20km from the city, and not 40km away. It’s also another reason why it’s crucial that this future project is well managed.

As much as we all dream of a denser and taller Adelaide CBD, the truth is there is always going to be strong demand for residential subdivisions. I would rather this area be developed, then see miles of new homes heading towards Kapunda.

The area could be transformed into a larger and improved version of Mawson Lakes... such as; high tech industries, commercial businesses, mixture of apartments and homes, recreational facilities, and frequent bus feeder services connecting to an electrified modern railway network OR a new spur line. It could also include a marina, canals, man-made lagoon for swimming and a strong emphasis on protecting the coastal environment. These are just some of ideas of how this windswept eyesore could be developed over the next coming decades. It would also be good if the visually intrusive Torrens Island power station could be demolished and relocated far away from Adelaide, as well as Bolivar treatment plant which would free up more land for development.

It’s a long time vision, but I believe once the Northern Connector is complete there will be a stronger interest to develop this piece of real estate for both residential, commercial and environmental use.

In saying all this... in my own ideal world, I would like to one day see the airport relocated out this away (potentially Gilman) with a direct train express service to the city. Though that is dreaming....

[metro]

It would also be good if the visually intrusive Torrens Island power station could be demolished and relocated far away from Adelaide

I would rather see Torrens Island Power Station given heritage listing and preserved to educate people decades/centuries in the future on how the people in our time generated electricity. It was bad enough seeing the demolition of the Stanvac Oil Refinery, a huge 20th century industrial landmark of the Southern suburbs and a significant part of our state's history and a symbol of our dependence on oil.. now gone forever, to lose Torrens Island as well would be a disaster.

as well as Bolivar treatment plant which would free up more land for development.

Certainly not the most attractive thing, and I sure wouldn't want to live next door to it, but it is kind of essential. Besides, there is a water treatment plant in Glenelg right next to million dollar beachfront property.

[Nathan]

It would also be good if the visually intrusive Torrens Island power station could be demolished and relocated far away from Adelaide

I would rather see Torrens Island Power Station given heritage listing and preserved to educate people decades/centuries in the future on how the people in our time generated electricity. It was bad enough seeing the demolition of the Stanvac Oil Refinery, a huge 20th century industrial landmark of the Southern suburbs and a significant part of our state's history and a symbol of our dependence on oil.. now gone forever, to lose Torrens Island as well would be a disaster.

If only we built beautiful power stations here.

[rev]

If Dubai and China can build islands in the middle of the oceans out of nothing, then I'm sure we can manage to replace soil at the salt pans with suitable soil for an urban development.

The salt pans are an eyesore.
It's a large area, and when people are complaining about urban sprawl to the north and south of the metro fringes, and the lack of public transport options, the cost of infrastructure for such far flung areas, then I would have thought that such an opportunity to develop a large parcel of land into thousands of homes close to the city would be something that quite a few people on this forum would be in favor of.

[bits]

Certainly not the most attractive thing, and I sure wouldn't want to live next door to it, but it is kind of essential. Besides, there is a water treatment plant in Glenelg right next to million dollar beachfront property.

The Glenelg plant is not at all comparable to the Bolivar sludge drying pans.

PS we dont need to save a power station to show future generation how we use to generate power, they could read a paper on it. Or fly to some other struggling or abandoned city which still has one and never had the money to even pull it down; probably a city that wasted time on keeping the thing in the first place.
Could you imagine how much junk humans would have accumulated over the past 200,000 years if we kept everything everyone ever made just to show future generations their version of someone else's commonly made invention.