Riverlea (Buckland Park) | 12,000 dwellings | $3b

[shuza]

anything to stop this from happening will put a smile on my dile

[Cruise]

^^^^^ why? i cant wait for it to happen.

[AtD]

Because it's more environmentally unsound, unsustainable and unserviced urban sprawl.

[urban]

This seems like a very expensive way of getting "cheap" land.

The sooner the Govt works out that there is no such thing as cheap land on the suburban fringes the better. Some areas are meant to flood. Virginia is such a good area for growing crops because it has been regularly flooded for centuries.

The money normally spent on providing infrastructure to new outlying suburbs should be spent on upgrading existing infrastructure to facilitate urban consolidation. Perhaps hold an international design competition for land such as Cheltenham Racecourse with an emphasis on family friendly medium density development.

[shuza]

Hear hear.
The reason people complain of lack of services to new areas are because they are established away from existing areas. If we filled in the gaps, services need only be upgraded, and then incorporated into the standards of city services after a few years.

[stanley]

apparently land owners in the area are already being made offers, not a huge amount, but i didn't think it was going ahead yet for sure? or is it now?

[rhino]

I heard a federal govt minister (can't think which one) on the weekend blaming the state governments for the increase in house prices, because they should be opening up more land for development. They're so out of touch - "but the economy is so good!" Don't know where the money is - it's not with me!

[Cruise]

i cant wait for this to get started!!!
i just hope ive got enough equity by then!

[Ho Really]

More work required
The Saturday Advertiser
September 15, 2007

DEVELOPERS behind the proposed Buckland Park development will need to produce an environmental impact statement before being approved, Parliament has been told.

Urban Development and Training Minister Paul Holloway said the statement should address issues including potential flooding, infrastructure, water supply and demands on community services.

The Buckland Park proposal is for a township housing more than 15,000 people on a 1000-ha site, between Virginia and Port Gawler.

Cheers

[Cruise]

anything new on this?

[SRW]

Hopefully it's been or will be ditched...

[P.K.]

Hello everyone.
I’m not sure how I stumbled upon this forum or who the people are who are posting in it, but after reading this thread I felt I should say a few words. There are a few people dead against this development, and I can not understand why. I have read articles in the paper and letters to the editor about why in their infinite wisdom this development should not go ahead. “Its too far away”, “its more urban sprawl”, “there’s no infrastructure”, “it smells out there because of bolivar”, “it will flood” “there’s not enough electricity and water in Adelaide now” and it goes on…
Why is someone who lives in Marion or Norwood concerned about a low cost housing development in the north anyway!
Let’s have a quick think about some of these…
Firstly do you really, think that the walker corporation, run by Australia’s 11th richest man is going to invest in a development without considering infrastructure, flooding, power and water etc, come on!!!
Considering the proximity to the bolivar treatment works, and the amount of housing, that is both closer, and down stream from where the wind blows most of the time, I don’t think the cats pee smell will be a problem. There is a smell out there, that is from the compost plant that has been established up the road from many houses (how this was approved I’ll never know).
Most of the people who will live out there already live in Adelaide, they are already using your power and water.
If it means our younger couples can afford to buy a house then I say bring it on, they’ve got no chance closer to the city. What about lower rents available for our younger people, or investment opportunities for people with lower incomes?
Too far away? From what? it takes 20 minutes to get to Gepps Cross and for the destroyer project it would be a 35 minute drive to get to Osbourne, without even considering employment in the north. Look at Sydney and Melbourne, it is nothing to drive for an hour to get to work. Adelaide can’t remain a sleepy hollow forever, if that’s what you want, then maybe you should move to a small country town.
The way I see it, the only people who should be against this development are the people who moved out to Buckland Park to get away from the main population, but these people will benefit from increased land values if the development does go ahead, maybe they didn’t move far enough away?
Then there’s an MP saying that this development shouldn’t go ahead if it doesn’t run on rainwater and renewable energy? What’s with that? Do all new subdivisions have to be set up this way? No, then why single out this one? If someone else plans something like this at Seaford or Craigmore, will the same demands be made? I doubt it, what’s the big deal? People have to live somewhere!
If the engineers can plan for a flood free development then the benefits from this development by far out way the negatives, that’s my 2 cents worth.

P.K.

[Will]

Hello everyone.
Too far away? From what? it takes 20 minutes to get to Gepps Cross and for the destroyer project it would be a 35 minute drive to get to Osbourne, without even considering employment in the north. Look at Sydney and Melbourne, it is nothing to drive for an hour to get to work. Adelaide can’t remain a sleepy hollow forever, if that’s what you want, then maybe you should move to a small country town.

P.K.

Actually, forcing people to live further away from the CBD will not improve the vibe, buzz of the city, due to the simple fact, that these people will live too far away from the CBD, and hence although they live in 'Adelaide' they will contribute very little to the energy of the city, because they will probaably only come into the CBD once a year. Furthermore, have you considered the costs involved to the governemtn by continuous urban sprawl? The people living here will want access to public transport, hospitals, schools...etc. Urban Sprawl is not longer sustainable, economically or environmentally.

[urban]

P.K., I like to think that Adelaide is smarter than Melbourne and Sydney and will avoid the ad hoc planning decisions which have led to people having to drive an hour to get to work.

Walker corporation are involved because they will pay a nominal cost for the land and a few dollars to do the subdivision while the state government will spend over the years $100 million plus constructing and maintaining the infrastructure. Walker Corporation then take home a handsome profit by selling the land at highly inflated prices.

If the state govt spent the same money subsidising inner city housing we would have a significantly more vibrant city with decent quality infrastructure. Instead we have appalling public transport, crumbling water infrastructure and overstretched electricity infrastructure.

Housing estate developers perpetuate this myth of cheap land on the outskirts. It is only cheap because it is heavily subsidised. This urban sprawl cannot be justified on economic, environmental or social grounds.

[P.K.]

A privately set up subdivision in an area where there is currently nothing would have to be cheaper than to buy up existing properties, renew the aging water supply systems and redeveloping, surely. And as for the other, the plans include a medical centre, and school. Public transport exists already in virginia, it could be as simple as extending a bus route by 5 kilometres.

It is because of developments like this that Adelaide is a far better place to live than Sydney or Melbourne, for example west lakes, goldern grove, mawson lakes.

This development is not about keeping the vibe and buzz of adelaide alive, its about giving people somewhere to live. Its up to the individual if they want to shop in the city or suburbs.

Who is subsidising this development? I dont remeber Mike Rann standing up and saying we're going to put another 1 billion dollars into this project, no, because its not subsidised by taxpayers, its a private development!

Was everyone against the mawson lakes development?

If you think we need to fill in the gaps? you have to talk to joe the veggie grower about that, he's waiting for his land to be worth more before he sells.

I do not claim to be the state treasurer or similar but I think the government will spend more money over the next few years repairing underground plumbing in the older develloped suburbs than they will at Buckland Park and mawson lakes combined because of materials and methods used. The up keep on the roads, parks etc would become the local councils responsibility and the rate payers will be subsidising that. That would be an extra 8,000 rate payers to the playford council, and for the first few years all they will need to worry about is the cost of rubbish collection, hmmm...

The only difference to this and every other subdevelopment is the size, of course someone is going to make money out of it, its why people invest money in realestate, and because of its size some people are going to make a lot of money, good luck to them.

Did anyone stop delfin because they were going to make a heap of money out of west lakes? what about the individual who bought a house on delfin island so many years ago and is selling it to make a huge profit now, are they bad people?

There is talk of smaller blocks of land being available for $100K, is that a bad thing? sounds good to me although I haven't seen them advertised just yet, we'll just have to wait and see about that one.

Good for veggies, not out there its not, all the good land is closer to port wakefield road, yeah thats right, virginia grove estate is on prime horticultural land, how come no one is complaining about that?