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

[Mpol02]

But also ew

[SBD]

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.

I readily accept that not everyone wants to live in an apartment. I have more difficulty in accepting that people want to commute for over an hour each way. That is a consequence of planning decisions about the locations of employment and residential areas at both the collective and individual levels.

Early provision of transport infrastructure encourages choices to live and work/play further apart. Later provision only puts the problem off for a bit. Community planning decisions that make it easier for individuals to choose to live near where they want to work/study/be entertained help everyone by reducing the demand for traffic.

[rev]

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.

I readily accept that not everyone wants to live in an apartment. I have more difficulty in accepting that people want to commute for over an hour each way. That is a consequence of planning decisions about the locations of employment and residential areas at both the collective and individual levels.

Early provision of transport infrastructure encourages choices to live and work/play further apart. Later provision only puts the problem off for a bit. Community planning decisions that make it easier for individuals to choose to live near where they want to work/study/be entertained help everyone by reducing the demand for traffic.

Yes, people want to live that far out, needing to drive an hour or two every day to/from work.
It's definitely not that the majority of people can't afford to live in inner-city suburbs anymore. Definitely not.

[SBD]

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.

I readily accept that not everyone wants to live in an apartment. I have more difficulty in accepting that people want to commute for over an hour each way. That is a consequence of planning decisions about the locations of employment and residential areas at both the collective and individual levels.

Early provision of transport infrastructure encourages choices to live and work/play further apart. Later provision only puts the problem off for a bit. Community planning decisions that make it easier for individuals to choose to live near where they want to work/study/be entertained help everyone by reducing the demand for traffic.

Yes, people want to live that far out, needing to drive an hour or two every day to/from work.
It's definitely not that the majority of people can't afford to live in inner-city suburbs anymore. Definitely not.

Your comments assume that people who "want to live that far out" need to work in the city centre. Why?

I live in a detached house on the edge of suburbia, but I don't commute for over an hour. If nobody could afford to live in inner suburbs, then nobody would live there. That is clearly not the case.

Some people choose or need to work in the city centre. Some people choose to live in or near the city centre. Planning decisions (including "affordable housing") should help to make it possible for a large overlap between those two groups of "some people".

Industry is being moved further out from the city centre (Holden started in King William Street, West End started in Hindley Street). Employment is moving away from the centre, so people can live in outer suburbs and work much closer to home than the city centre.

The alternative is what we see in other cities - faster trains transporting workers longer distances and the commute is still well over an hour. "We" get to decide if we think that is beneficial for family and community or whether our society is better overall by helping people to work closer to where they live and spend less time commuting. Bigger freeways and faster trains are not the only options.

[Jaymz]

Not sure why peeps are talking a 1 hour commute, it would be around 40 mins from said suburb on the freeway and Port Road, in peak hour.

[SBD]

Not sure why peeps are are talking a 1 hour commute, it would be around 40 mins from said suburb on the freeway and Port Road, in peak hour.

I allow at least an hour to get from home to anywhere in the Adelaide CBD. People are talking as if Riverlea Park (the new suburb containing the housing estate in what was previously Buckland Park) is more remote than anywhere else. I know people in Sydney who commute for over an hour. That is the upper end of "too long" for me.

So far, people in this conversation seem to be arguing that it is necessary to commute for that long. I am arguing that planning decisions should not require that as most people prefer a shorter commute.

[bits]

Seaford, Aldinga, Mt Barker, Munno Para, Gawler are all the same or worse.
Most have a train line or are talked about on here daily about getting a train line.

[rev]

I readily accept that not everyone wants to live in an apartment. I have more difficulty in accepting that people want to commute for over an hour each way. That is a consequence of planning decisions about the locations of employment and residential areas at both the collective and individual levels.

Early provision of transport infrastructure encourages choices to live and work/play further apart. Later provision only puts the problem off for a bit. Community planning decisions that make it easier for individuals to choose to live near where they want to work/study/be entertained help everyone by reducing the demand for traffic.

Yes, people want to live that far out, needing to drive an hour or two every day to/from work.
It's definitely not that the majority of people can't afford to live in inner-city suburbs anymore. Definitely not.

Your comments assume that people who "want to live that far out" need to work in the city centre. Why?

I live in a detached house on the edge of suburbia, but I don't commute for over an hour. If nobody could afford to live in inner suburbs, then nobody would live there. That is clearly not the case.

Some people choose or need to work in the city centre. Some people choose to live in or near the city centre. Planning decisions (including "affordable housing") should help to make it possible for a large overlap between those two groups of "some people".

Industry is being moved further out from the city centre (Holden started in King William Street, West End started in Hindley Street). Employment is moving away from the centre, so people can live in outer suburbs and work much closer to home than the city centre.

The alternative is what we see in other cities - faster trains transporting workers longer distances and the commute is still well over an hour. "We" get to decide if we think that is beneficial for family and community or whether our society is better overall by helping people to work closer to where they live and spend less time commuting. Bigger freeways and faster trains are not the only options.

Firstly, I never said nobody can afford to live in the inner suburbs. I said most people can not.

You think that there's no need for a train line to an area that's going to host a major population and be an extension, or sprawl, of the existing suburban/urban environment.

You keep saying that people can work closer to those areas.
Can you tell me, where are the equivalent white collar jobs in the northern suburbs?

You're entire argument ignores the fact that the northern suburbs has one of the highest unemployment rates in Adelaide, if not the highest. But you think that people can just go get jobs tomorrow in the northern suburbs, that they already have in the city centre.
It also ignores the fact that jobs that are available in the city centre, or closer to the city centre in inner suburbs, may not be and are unlikely to be available in the outer suburbs.

If it's that easy like your repeated statement implies, show us..

Your counter to that though is that they can live closer to their jobs in the city centre or inner suburbs. Which ignores the fact that most people can not afford to live in the inner suburbs.

Based on the logic in your argument, that we don't need public transport into the outer suburbs because those people who live there can get jobs in their local area, we also don't need roads and motorways connecting those parts of Adelaide to the rest right? We can tear up the North South motorway, rip up Main North Road, Port Wakefield Road, and everything in between.

Using your argument, we don't need those roads for people who work at say Hendon, Melrose Park or Dry Creek but can only afford to live at Munno Para, they can get a job in Munno Para.

If there's no need for public transport out there, then there's no need for roads to be connecting to the outer suburbs.
Right? ......Of course not.

[SBD]

Firstly, I never said nobody can afford to live in the inner suburbs. I said most people can not.

You think that there's no need for a train line to an area that's going to host a major population and be an extension, or sprawl, of the existing suburban/urban environment.

You keep saying that people can work closer to those areas.
Can you tell me, where are the equivalent white collar jobs in the northern suburbs?

You're entire argument ignores the fact that the northern suburbs has one of the highest unemployment rates in Adelaide, if not the highest. But you think that people can just go get jobs tomorrow in the northern suburbs, that they already have in the city centre.
It also ignores the fact that jobs that are available in the city centre, or closer to the city centre in inner suburbs, may not be and are unlikely to be available in the outer suburbs.

If it's that easy like your repeated statement implies, show us..

Your counter to that though is that they can live closer to their jobs in the city centre or inner suburbs. Which ignores the fact that most people can not afford to live in the inner suburbs.

Based on the logic in your argument, that we don't need public transport into the outer suburbs because those people who live there can get jobs in their local area, we also don't need roads and motorways connecting those parts of Adelaide to the rest right? We can tear up the North South motorway, rip up Main North Road, Port Wakefield Road, and everything in between.

Using your argument, we don't need those roads for people who work at say Hendon, Melrose Park or Dry Creek but can only afford to live at Munno Para, they can get a job in Munno Para.

If there's no need for public transport out there, then there's no need for roads to be connecting to the outer suburbs.
Right? ......Of course not.

I haven't checked, but I expect that many of the businesses with headquarters in the northern suburbs have some white collar jobs in those headquarters. That might not be a lot of jobs overall. There are also Defence public servants and several large Defence contractors in Edinburgh and Mawson Lakes. They employ scientists and engineers as well as pen-pushers.

Google tells me that high school teachers and pharmacists are white collar jobs. They are everywhere. There are a lot more doctors in the suburbs than the country too. There's a busy court in Elizabeth, I guess it has lawyers hanging around.

I haven't said that people currently employed in the city centre could change jobs tomorrow to work in the northern suburbs. I've said that our (the state's) planning rule/laws/guidelines should make it easier for people to choose to live near where they work and/or choose to work near where they live. A change like that can't hapen overnight. I worked over an hour's drive from home (the one I grew up in) for the first 20 months of my career while I built up the deposit and built the house I moved to with a 20-minute commute.

My ongoing point has been that the infrastructure and planning should be done to assist and encourage shorter commutes, and an increased opportunity for a local community, rather than assuming and requiring long commutes and dispersed "community".

The business case for the North South Motorway was and continues to be freight and business, improved commuting is an added bonus. We also can't rip up or downgrade existing infrastructure that has already been factored into people's decisions.

That the northern suburbs has a higher unemployment rate should make it attractive to set up new employee-intensive businesses there. The trouble with that blanket statement is that not every person can do every job. An unemployed architect can not readily fill a vacant software engineering role, nor an unemployed software engineer fill a vacant aged care job for example. We need to know what the vacant jobs are and what the unemployed workers are qualified for.

Even if the jobs and workers are mostly blue-collar (or collarless for nurses and aged care), there are very few public transport services set up to help them move between home and work and back again at the right times.

[rev]

I haven't checked, but I expect that many of the businesses with headquarters in the northern suburbs have some white collar jobs in those headquarters. That might not be a lot of jobs overall. There are also Defence public servants and several large Defence contractors in Edinburgh and Mawson Lakes. They employ scientists and engineers as well as pen-pushers.

Google tells me that high school teachers and pharmacists are white collar jobs. They are everywhere. There are a lot more doctors in the suburbs than the country too. There's a busy court in Elizabeth, I guess it has lawyers hanging around.

I haven't said that people currently employed in the city centre could change jobs tomorrow to work in the northern suburbs. I've said that our (the state's) planning rule/laws/guidelines should make it easier for people to choose to live near where they work and/or choose to work near where they live. A change like that can't hapen overnight. I worked over an hour's drive from home (the one I grew up in) for the first 20 months of my career while I built up the deposit and built the house I moved to with a 20-minute commute.

My ongoing point has been that the infrastructure and planning should be done to assist and encourage shorter commutes, and an increased opportunity for a local community, rather than assuming and requiring long commutes and dispersed "community".

The business case for the North South Motorway was and continues to be freight and business, improved commuting is an added bonus. We also can't rip up or downgrade existing infrastructure that has already been factored into people's decisions.

That the northern suburbs has a higher unemployment rate should make it attractive to set up new employee-intensive businesses there. The trouble with that blanket statement is that not every person can do every job. An unemployed architect can not readily fill a vacant software engineering role, nor an unemployed software engineer fill a vacant aged care job for example. We need to know what the vacant jobs are and what the unemployed workers are qualified for.

Even if the jobs and workers are mostly blue-collar (or collarless for nurses and aged care), there are very few public transport services set up to help them move between home and work and back again at the right times.

It only took your 20 months to build up a deposit for a house? And you think people today can do the same in that time frame?

You're seriously detached from reality like SCOMO.

[SBD]

It only took your 20 months to build up a deposit for a house? And you think people today can do the same in that time frame?

You're seriously detached from reality like SCOMO.

Maybe I am, but I didn't say that; I said that I commuted to the other side of the earth (well, Adelaide) for 20 months. It was my first home, so I had spent my entire life to that point saving for it, as had my then-fiancée, now wife.

I did it as part of the bigger picture, not because I wanted a long commute. As soon as I could, I went for a shorter one. We each choose our own priorities.

At the time, moving closer to work made sense. Since then, the roads have been improved (but relevant public transport has not). It is possible that the balance would fall differently today.

[rev]

It only took your 20 months to build up a deposit for a house? And you think people today can do the same in that time frame?

You're seriously detached from reality like SCOMO.

Maybe I am, but I didn't say that; I said that I commuted to the other side of the earth (well, Adelaide) for 20 months. It was my first home, so I had spent my entire life to that point saving for it, as had my then-fiancée, now wife.

I did it as part of the bigger picture, not because I wanted a long commute. As soon as I could, I went for a shorter one. We each choose our own priorities.

At the time, moving closer to work made sense. Since then, the roads have been improved (but relevant public transport has not). It is possible that the balance would fall differently today.

Ok. So how long do you think its going to take people to save a deposit for a inner suburb today?

Was the rent situation back then when you were saving for a home, the same as it is now?

Theres a lot of factors that are different.
Your comment that it only took 20 months for you, is like Barnaby Joyce telling us he bought a house of only $60,000.

Most people are probably taking home anywhere from $600-900 a week.
Take out living expenses, rent. Do you think they're left with enough to save a deposit for a house in only 20 months?

There does need to be better policy and decision making, probably a discussion for another thread entirely.

But the fact is Riverlea is happening, it's going to have 20,000-30,000 residents, and tge areas between it and existing suburbia will mostly be filled with housing in the decades ahead.
There could be 100,000 people living up that way eventually, or more.
It very much needs a public transport link.

[SBD]

It only took your 20 months to build up a deposit for a house? And you think people today can do the same in that time frame?

You're seriously detached from reality like SCOMO.

Maybe I am, but I didn't say that; I said that I commuted to the other side of the earth (well, Adelaide) for 20 months. It was my first home, so I had spent my entire life to that point saving for it, as had my then-fiancée, now wife.

I did it as part of the bigger picture, not because I wanted a long commute. As soon as I could, I went for a shorter one. We each choose our own priorities.

At the time, moving closer to work made sense. Since then, the roads have been improved (but relevant public transport has not). It is possible that the balance would fall differently today.

Ok. So how long do you think its going to take people to save a deposit for a inner suburb today?

Was the rent situation back then when you were saving for a home, the same as it is now?

Theres a lot of factors that are different.
Your comment that it only took 20 months for you, is like Barnaby Joyce telling us he bought a house of only $60,000.

Most people are probably taking home anywhere from $600-900 a week.
Take out living expenses, rent. Do you think they're left with enough to save a deposit for a house in only 20 months?

There does need to be better policy and decision making, probably a discussion for another thread entirely.

But the fact is Riverlea is happening, it's going to have 20,000-30,000 residents, and tge areas between it and existing suburbia will mostly be filled with housing in the decades ahead.
There could be 100,000 people living up that way eventually, or more.
It very much needs a public transport link.

I have not discussed finances or the housing market with any young couples lately, so you're right, I don't really know what it is like at present. I don't know if the ones I know are renting or buying the homes they live in. I don't know anyone who says they chose to live where they live to provide a longer commute than they needed. The people I know with the longest commutes live where they are to remain close to family for various reasons, not because they failed to afford to live elsewhere.

As someone else pointed out, a commute from RIverlea to Adelaide CBD is not all that long down Port Wakefield ROad, Northern Connector etc and Port Road, and will be even quicker once the North South Motorway goes to Sir Donald Bradman Drive. It will not be hard to put express buses on that route. The radio interviews when the Gawler line reopened included a couple of people who found the express bus (after it started using the Northern Connector and Regency Road Bridge) better than the train service from Gawler to Adelaide.

I'm not against the idea of a passenger railway, I just don't see it as a priority in terms of cost/benefit. The benefits might be more visible for extending the Gawler Central service to Kalbeeba and the Gawler service to Roseworthy or Wasleys. The rails are stil there, but I expect they would need to be relaid or replaced to be usable, and should have wires strung over them too.

I don't think extending commuter rail to the Barossa is a good idea, as it would destroy much of the reason people want to live there. Likewise, Mount Barker should be developed as a separate city, not a remote dormitory. The slope and curves are not condusive to offering a service that can compete with buses for Stirling, Bridgewater, Hahndorf, Balhannah and Mount Barker on the current alignment (or Oakbank, Woodside, Birdwood on that former branch) .

[Dayc21]

It only took your 20 months to build up a deposit for a house? And you think people today can do the same in that time frame?

You're seriously detached from reality like SCOMO.

Maybe I am, but I didn't say that; I said that I commuted to the other side of the earth (well, Adelaide) for 20 months. It was my first home, so I had spent my entire life to that point saving for it, as had my then-fiancée, now wife.

I did it as part of the bigger picture, not because I wanted a long commute. As soon as I could, I went for a shorter one. We each choose our own priorities.

At the time, moving closer to work made sense. Since then, the roads have been improved (but relevant public transport has not). It is possible that the balance would fall differently today.

Ok. So how long do you think its going to take people to save a deposit for a inner suburb today?

Was the rent situation back then when you were saving for a home, the same as it is now?

Theres a lot of factors that are different.
Your comment that it only took 20 months for you, is like Barnaby Joyce telling us he bought a house of only $60,000.

Most people are probably taking home anywhere from $600-900 a week.
Take out living expenses, rent. Do you think they're left with enough to save a deposit for a house in only 20 months?

There does need to be better policy and decision making, probably a discussion for another thread entirely.

But the fact is Riverlea is happening, it's going to have 20,000-30,000 residents, and tge areas between it and existing suburbia will mostly be filled with housing in the decades ahead.
There could be 100,000 people living up that way eventually, or more.
It very much needs a public transport link.

[Nort]

I don't think extending commuter rail to the Barossa is a good idea, as it would destroy much of the reason people want to live there. Likewise, Mount Barker should be developed as a separate city, not a remote dormitory. The slope and curves are not condusive to offering a service that can compete with buses for Stirling, Bridgewater, Hahndorf, Balhannah and Mount Barker on the current alignment (or Oakbank, Woodside, Birdwood on that former branch) .

You keep saying it, but the fact is that it's close enough to Adelaide that it is effectively a suburb now, and will always be. In fact if Mount Barker got more industry and university campuses and all that fun stuff it would probably just increase the amount of movements back and forth.

Likewise, people keep talking about what the local employers are to suburbs like Riverlea in 2022. I mean great to know, but absolutely not guaranteed to be at all relevant in 2042 or 2062, and thinking about what the place could be like just a few decades from now should be a core part of urban planning.

That doesn't mean we can't build there, but if we are doing it we should be doing it right. If we want to build something that is explicitly not a commuter suburb then it has to be further away. If it's a commuter suburb then we need to acknowledge that and plan accordingly.