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

[SBD]

Virginia should be a city. It has town centre, main street, railway, major highway. As for short term maybe a regular bus route running between Virginia and City or Virginia and Mawson Lakes/Salisbury. Long term a train service between Virginia and Salisbury.

There must be hundreds of country towns that have or had a town centre, main street and railway with a highway through or nearby.

Virginia is served by the route 900 bus. I guess it is intended to challenge my assertion that Adelaide public transport doesn't serve blue collar workers. There are two buses on weekday mornings (6:47 and 7:54) Elizabeth-Virginia-Salisbury and two in the afternoon (4:52 and 5:38) Salisbury-Virginia-Elizabeth.

[1NEEDS2POST]

I believe the built version of the Northern Connector left a railway reservation on its western side (earlier designs had it in the middle). It's intended for re-routing the interstate line not a new metro line though. I don't know where(or if) an allowance has been made to get it across Port Wakefield Road to the existing line though.

No, there's no provisions for it to cross Port Wakefield road, infact they left no provisions for it anywhere in the corridor

The last proposal was to connect to the existing railway south of Dry Creek. See figure 3c on page 8 of this: https://www.dit.sa.gov.au/infrastructur ... ns?a=70738

If the Adelaide Hills bypass gets built, there might not even be a need for that connection around Dry Creek.

[SBD]

Peeps in here seem to be focused on public transport to the CBD for employment only. Surely a big function of it is for the leisure/entertainment factor. People living in the burbs i'd like to think still want to get to the city for the footy, see a show, attend a festival, go for a night out at the Casino or perhaps visit a restaurant and enjoy a few drinks without having to drive.

If areas to the north are to have tens of thousands of extra residents over the coming years, why shouldn't they be able to catch a train to the CBD?

There are special services for footy matches. I suspect most people would prefer to drive than risk public transport for a show or night out when they are dressed up and likely to be getting home late. For restaurants, Gawler and Tanunda are just as quick to get to by road as Adelaide is, with less parking and traffic hassles.

Big shows are only in the big cities. We need more regional tours in SA of middle shows like they have in the eastern states, and inter-city (not commuter) rail to Adelaide like we had in the old days.

[SBD]

I believe the built version of the Northern Connector left a railway reservation on its western side (earlier designs had it in the middle). It's intended for re-routing the interstate line not a new metro line though. I don't know where(or if) an allowance has been made to get it across Port Wakefield Road to the existing line though.

No, there's no provisions for it to cross Port Wakefield road, infact they left no provisions for it anywhere in the corridor

The last proposal was to connect to the existing railway south of Dry Creek. See figure 3c on page 8 of this: https://www.dit.sa.gov.au/infrastructur ... ns?a=70738

If the Adelaide Hills bypass gets built, there might not even be a need for that connection around Dry Creek.

My comment about Port Wakefield Road was about the Northern Interchange in figure 3a.

The Dry Creek connection would still be needed if the Regency Park freight terminal remains in use.

[Nort]

Peeps in here seem to be focused on public transport to the CBD for employment only. Surely a big function of it is for the leisure/entertainment factor. People living in the burbs i'd like to think still want to get to the city for the footy, see a show, attend a festival, go for a night out at the Casino or perhaps visit a restaurant and enjoy a few drinks without having to drive.

If areas to the north are to have tens of thousands of extra residents over the coming years, why shouldn't they be able to catch a train to the CBD?

Exactly.

I'm all in favor of the argument that we shouldn't be essentially just building more sprawl.

However the practical reality is that with developments like this we are building suburban sprawl.

Where new suburbs are being built it should be with quality road and public transport connections. If that's not financially viable, then we shouldn't be building there at all.

For example as these families grow a little older, what happens when their kids start applying to universities in the city? We're gonna have a bunch more cars on the road, either driving into the city directly or further clogging up places like the Mawson Lakes park and ride.

[SBD]

Peeps in here seem to be focused on public transport to the CBD for employment only. Surely a big function of it is for the leisure/entertainment factor. People living in the burbs i'd like to think still want to get to the city for the footy, see a show, attend a festival, go for a night out at the Casino or perhaps visit a restaurant and enjoy a few drinks without having to drive.

If areas to the north are to have tens of thousands of extra residents over the coming years, why shouldn't they be able to catch a train to the CBD?

Exactly.

I'm all in favor of the argument that we shouldn't be essentially just building more sprawl.

However the practical reality is that with developments like this we are building suburban sprawl.

Where new suburbs are being built it should be with quality road and public transport connections. If that's not financially viable, then we shouldn't be building there at all.

For example as these families grow a little older, what happens when their kids start applying to universities in the city? We're gonna have a bunch more cars on the road, either driving into the city directly or further clogging up places like the Mawson Lakes park and ride.

There’s a shiny new set of traffic lights to Port Wakefield Road and Angle Vale Road. Riverlea has as good or better road link than any of the other new estates. It has no trains or buses, but neither do any of the other outer developments when they start. Uni doesn’t have to be park and ride, there is a campus at Mawson Lakes too.

If people want a life (work or leisure) that involves frequent travel into Adelaide city, they should consider one of the developments in or near the city. Bowden, Hindmarsh, Mile End, high rise apartments etc. all offer that. Some of those are new residential areas on former industrial sites. The industry is nearer the urban fringe or further out, so people can live near there and get different benefits.

[Jaymz]

Peeps in here seem to be focused on public transport to the CBD for employment only. Surely a big function of it is for the leisure/entertainment factor. People living in the burbs i'd like to think still want to get to the city for the footy, see a show, attend a festival, go for a night out at the Casino or perhaps visit a restaurant and enjoy a few drinks without having to drive.

If areas to the north are to have tens of thousands of extra residents over the coming years, why shouldn't they be able to catch a train to the CBD?

Exactly.

I'm all in favor of the argument that we shouldn't be essentially just building more sprawl.

However the practical reality is that with developments like this we are building suburban sprawl.

Where new suburbs are being built it should be with quality road and public transport connections. If that's not financially viable, then we shouldn't be building there at all.

For example as these families grow a little older, what happens when their kids start applying to universities in the city? We're gonna have a bunch more cars on the road, either driving into the city directly or further clogging up places like the Mawson Lakes park and ride.

There’s a shiny new set of traffic lights to Port Wakefield Road and Angle Vale Road. Riverlea has as good or better road link than any of the other new estates. It has no trains or buses, but neither do any of the other outer developments when they start. Uni doesn’t have to be park and ride, there is a campus at Mawson Lakes too.

If people want a life (work or leisure) that involves frequent travel into Adelaide city, they should consider one of the developments in or near the city. Bowden, Hindmarsh, Mile End, high rise apartments etc. all offer that. Some of those are new residential areas on former industrial sites. The industry is nearer the urban fringe or further out, so people can live near there and get different benefits.

I'm sorry but you're being very specific with you argument. First that people living in fringe suburbs be limited to Uni S.A at Mawson Lakes. Second that they should live in a town house or apartment at one of the inner areas which you mentioned.

There are still a lot of ppl who want to live on a block of land in a house, and like it or not we have to accommodate them. Don't get me wrong, I live in a city apartment, but there are still a large chunk of ppl who would rather spend the same amount of money (even less) to have a back yard and more floor space.

[SBD]

Exactly.

I'm all in favor of the argument that we shouldn't be essentially just building more sprawl.

However the practical reality is that with developments like this we are building suburban sprawl.

Where new suburbs are being built it should be with quality road and public transport connections. If that's not financially viable, then we shouldn't be building there at all.

For example as these families grow a little older, what happens when their kids start applying to universities in the city? We're gonna have a bunch more cars on the road, either driving into the city directly or further clogging up places like the Mawson Lakes park and ride.

There’s a shiny new set of traffic lights to Port Wakefield Road and Angle Vale Road. Riverlea has as good or better road link than any of the other new estates. It has no trains or buses, but neither do any of the other outer developments when they start. Uni doesn’t have to be park and ride, there is a campus at Mawson Lakes too.

If people want a life (work or leisure) that involves frequent travel into Adelaide city, they should consider one of the developments in or near the city. Bowden, Hindmarsh, Mile End, high rise apartments etc. all offer that. Some of those are new residential areas on former industrial sites. The industry is nearer the urban fringe or further out, so people can live near there and get different benefits.

I'm sorry but you're being very specific with you argument. First that people living in fringe suburbs be limited to Uni S.A at Mawson Lakes. Second that they should live in a town house or apartment at one of the inner areas which you mentioned.

There are still a lot of ppl who want to live on a block of land in a house, and like it or not we have to accommodate them. Don't get me wrong, I live in a city apartment, but there are still a large chunk of ppl who would rather spend the same amount of money (even less) to have a back yard and more floor space.

In part, I'm being specific because this is the Riverlea thread, not a general residential development thread or the SA Economy.

More generally, there are accommodation options for students, and when I was at uni there was a higher "living away from home" allowance for student benefits. I lived "at home" (on a farm, not a suburb), but was right on the edge of where it would have made sense to board closer to Adelaide Uni. Flinders Uni has a student boarding college too.

There are lots of inner-suburban houses too. Obviously there is a limited supply, but it's still possible to live in a freestanding house inside of the old tram network boundary, twenty minutes from the Adelaide parklands.

Someone remarked earlier that Adelaide should learn from Sydney and Melbourne. I'm going wider - South Australia should learn from New South Wales and Victoria, not slavishly follow their mistakes. Instead of continuing to increase the footprint of Greater Adelaide, and expect people to commute further and further to one central business district, we should be decentralising. Let's develop more independent cities with their own industrial and employment bases, and more secondary centres in the capital city. I haven't managed to get lots of people (or any at all) on this forum to stand up and say it is a positive outcome that people want to commute well over an hour at each end of the day, either by car, train or bus. Everyone wants their commute to be quicker. I'm advocating that the urban planning, Centrelink, whatever else is available should nudge people to make it easier and more attractive to make choices that result in shorter travel distances. The alternative (in my understanding) is making those kinds of nudges to assist people to make choices that result in longer distances. Eventually, if enough people make those choices, the transport corridors fill up, movement slows down, and more infrastructure is required to get back to the times they were promised. Examples include the need for new, wider freeways, faster (more expensive) trains, there's even been a brief mention of needing more tracks on the Gawler railway line!

I'm not saying that long commutes should be banned. I'm saying they should be discouraged, by making it easier to make choices that don't require long commutes. A lot of people don't move house or job very often, so the choices they make last a long time. We should be helping them to make choices that result in the kind of state or city we want to get to (or remain). I am yet to be convinced that means the average commute should be over 40 km of suburbs. Perhaps that's because I grew up in a town where I saw the same people at school/work, church, shop and CFS. Maybe I missed out on an urban diversity of having a different discrete community for each aspect of life, and don't know how much better that would be where my parents never encountered my school friends' parents in any other aspect of life. I'm open to listening.

[Nort]

There’s a shiny new set of traffic lights to Port Wakefield Road and Angle Vale Road. Riverlea has as good or better road link than any of the other new estates. It has no trains or buses, but neither do any of the other outer developments when they start. Uni doesn’t have to be park and ride, there is a campus at Mawson Lakes too.

If people want a life (work or leisure) that involves frequent travel into Adelaide city, they should consider one of the developments in or near the city. Bowden, Hindmarsh, Mile End, high rise apartments etc. all offer that. Some of those are new residential areas on former industrial sites. The industry is nearer the urban fringe or further out, so people can live near there and get different benefits.

I'm sorry but you're being very specific with you argument. First that people living in fringe suburbs be limited to Uni S.A at Mawson Lakes. Second that they should live in a town house or apartment at one of the inner areas which you mentioned.

There are still a lot of ppl who want to live on a block of land in a house, and like it or not we have to accommodate them. Don't get me wrong, I live in a city apartment, but there are still a large chunk of ppl who would rather spend the same amount of money (even less) to have a back yard and more floor space.

In part, I'm being specific because this is the Riverlea thread, not a general residential development thread or the SA Economy.

More generally, there are accommodation options for students, and when I was at uni there was a higher "living away from home" allowance for student benefits. I lived "at home" (on a farm, not a suburb), but was right on the edge of where it would have made sense to board closer to Adelaide Uni. Flinders Uni has a student boarding college too.

There are lots of inner-suburban houses too. Obviously there is a limited supply, but it's still possible to live in a freestanding house inside of the old tram network boundary, twenty minutes from the Adelaide parklands.

Someone remarked earlier that Adelaide should learn from Sydney and Melbourne. I'm going wider - South Australia should learn from New South Wales and Victoria, not slavishly follow their mistakes. Instead of continuing to increase the footprint of Greater Adelaide, and expect people to commute further and further to one central business district, we should be decentralising. Let's develop more independent cities with their own industrial and employment bases, and more secondary centres in the capital city. I haven't managed to get lots of people (or any at all) on this forum to stand up and say it is a positive outcome that people want to commute well over an hour at each end of the day, either by car, train or bus. Everyone wants their commute to be quicker. I'm advocating that the urban planning, Centrelink, whatever else is available should nudge people to make it easier and more attractive to make choices that result in shorter travel distances. The alternative (in my understanding) is making those kinds of nudges to assist people to make choices that result in longer distances. Eventually, if enough people make those choices, the transport corridors fill up, movement slows down, and more infrastructure is required to get back to the times they were promised. Examples include the need for new, wider freeways, faster (more expensive) trains, there's even been a brief mention of needing more tracks on the Gawler railway line!

I'm not saying that long commutes should be banned. I'm saying they should be discouraged, by making it easier to make choices that don't require long commutes. A lot of people don't move house or job very often, so the choices they make last a long time. We should be helping them to make choices that result in the kind of state or city we want to get to (or remain). I am yet to be convinced that means the average commute should be over 40 km of suburbs. Perhaps that's because I grew up in a town where I saw the same people at school/work, church, shop and CFS. Maybe I missed out on an urban diversity of having a different discrete community for each aspect of life, and don't know how much better that would be where my parents never encountered my school friends' parents in any other aspect of life. I'm open to listening.

The lessons from other countries and states and our own experiences with satellite cities in SA (hi Mount Barker!) are that if you don't want places to be seen as homes for commuters, they need to be physically further away. Anything we build within a few dozen km's of the city will inevitably become full of commuters to that city.

[rev]

There’s a shiny new set of traffic lights to Port Wakefield Road and Angle Vale Road. Riverlea has as good or better road link than any of the other new estates. It has no trains or buses, but neither do any of the other outer developments when they start. Uni doesn’t have to be park and ride, there is a campus at Mawson Lakes too.

The point is that this is only one of many developments to come in the area.
This is a rather large development, what was it 30,000 residents when Riverlea is completed?

If people want a life (work or leisure) that involves frequent travel into Adelaide city, they should consider one of the developments in or near the city. Bowden, Hindmarsh, Mile End, high rise apartments etc. all offer that. Some of those are new residential areas on former industrial sites. The industry is nearer the urban fringe or further out, so people can live near there and get different benefits.

Ah it's that simple is it, just buy closer to work in the inner suburbs?
What about the majority of people who can not afford to buy a house close to the city? What about people who don't want to live in a shoe box?

You're funny SBD. On the one hand you tell us that people are working from home because of covid measures, on the other hand you want people crammed into apartment buildings together.

[Nathan]

If people want a life (work or leisure) that involves frequent travel into Adelaide city, they should consider one of the developments in or near the city. Bowden, Hindmarsh, Mile End, high rise apartments etc. all offer that. Some of those are new residential areas on former industrial sites. The industry is nearer the urban fringe or further out, so people can live near there and get different benefits.

Ah it's that simple is it, just buy closer to work in the inner suburbs?
What about the majority of people who can not afford to buy a house close to the city? What about people who don't want to live in a shoe box?

You're funny SBD. On the one hand you tell us that people are working from home because of covid measures, on the other hand you want people crammed into apartment buildings together.

Well, yes. That is why we should be focussing on infill rather than new suburbs like Riverlea. If people cannot afford to live close to the city, then we need to develop so that people can.

[Jaymz]

With regards to urban sprawl, I keep seeing Sydney and Melbourne mentioned. Those two cities have around 5 million residents each, so sprawl is a given.

In my opinion, the major Australian city with the worst suburban sprawl is Perth. For a population of just over 2 million people, their footprint is massive.

[SBD]

There’s a shiny new set of traffic lights to Port Wakefield Road and Angle Vale Road. Riverlea has as good or better road link than any of the other new estates. It has no trains or buses, but neither do any of the other outer developments when they start. Uni doesn’t have to be park and ride, there is a campus at Mawson Lakes too.

The point is that this is only one of many developments to come in the area.
This is a rather large development, what was it 30,000 residents when Riverlea is completed?

If people want a life (work or leisure) that involves frequent travel into Adelaide city, they should consider one of the developments in or near the city. Bowden, Hindmarsh, Mile End, high rise apartments etc. all offer that. Some of those are new residential areas on former industrial sites. The industry is nearer the urban fringe or further out, so people can live near there and get different benefits.

Ah it's that simple is it, just buy closer to work in the inner suburbs?
What about the majority of people who can not afford to buy a house close to the city? What about people who don't want to live in a shoe box?

You're funny SBD. On the one hand you tell us that people are working from home because of covid measures, on the other hand you want people crammed into apartment buildings together.

I didn't say I want people crammed into apartment buildings. Nice try. I said that is one option for living near the city - there have been a number of apartment buildings recently discussed in these pages. There have also been student accommodation buildings. I don't see why they need to be reserved for foreign students and not also available to Australian students who live beyond commuting distance to their chosen uni. Prospect and Dulwich for example have standalone houses close to Adelaide centre for people who want them. Not sure about any of the new developments on former inner industrial land.

Sydney and Melbourne have major business centres at North Sydney, Paramatta, Dandenong etc. I'm not sure Port Adelaide, Elizabeth and Marion compare.

[SBD]

The lessons from other countries and states and our own experiences with satellite cities in SA (hi Mount Barker!) are that if you don't want places to be seen as homes for commuters, they need to be physically further away. Anything we build within a few dozen km's of the city will inevitably become full of commuters to that city.

Mount Barker has become a cluster of suburbs of Adelaide because of planning and infrastructure decisions. Dan Cregan wants to call it a separate city, but then complains it's too hard to commute to Adelaide anyway. Example decisions:

• South eastern freeway (original) and Heysen Tunnels made the effective distance to Adelaide shorter
• Swathes of farmland and market garden rezoned for housing
• Industry such as the meatworks pushed out and closed
• NOT expanding the hospital to be another major hospital
• No regional university campus (even limited courses gives a different feel)
• Woodside Army Barracks is older but much smaller than RAAF Base Edinburgh. 7RAR moved from Darwin to Edinburgh, could have gone to an enlarged Woodside instead

Development has led to it growing from a regional town into a suburb rather than growing into a regional city. This can't be blamed on any particular government, it has happened over 50 years. Salisbury and Elizabeth have experienced similar changes, although there may be more secondary industry remaining in that area than in Mount Barker.

[rev]

Ah it's that simple is it, just buy closer to work in the inner suburbs?
What about the majority of people who can not afford to buy a house close to the city? What about people who don't want to live in a shoe box?

You're funny SBD. On the one hand you tell us that people are working from home because of covid measures, on the other hand you want people crammed into apartment buildings together.

Well, yes. That is why we should be focussing on infill rather than new suburbs like Riverlea. If people cannot afford to live close to the city, then we need to develop so that people can.

And there is infill happening, when and where possible.

But some of you don't seem to understand, or want to accept... the fact that not everyone wants to live in an apartment. Which is part of the reason why residential developments of detached dwellings are still wildly popular.