News & Discussion: Adelaide Urban Sprawl & Density

[Wayno]

[[Shuz]]

Cheers Wayno.

One thing that does concern me about these new zoning changes is the yellow parcels of land, which are those "semi-rural" housing estates. What's stooping landowners from subdividing to the bare minimum size of land parcels which effectively makes them urbanized?

[Wayno]

Cheers Wayno.

One thing that does concern me about these new zoning changes is the yellow parcels of land, which are those "semi-rural" housing estates. What's stooping landowners from subdividing to the bare minimum size of land parcels which effectively makes them urbanized?

The Council's DA Plan guides parcel sizes. You'd need to look it up.

Currently DA plans are maintained with input from Council staff, and elected knuckleheads, err Councillors. Unsure if Rau's push to oust Councillors from dev approval meetings also means they won't contribute so much to future DA plan guidelines.

[claybro]

The southern suburbs sees very little change to the existing urban footprint now. Only Seaford Heights and a small bit of Aldinga set to expand.

Given this, is there any particular reason we consistently see discussion surrounding the extension if the Seaford line to Aldinga? Surely they should be talking about expansion of the Gawler line or spurs from same? As far as I remember there has been no serious discussion regarding any extensions to Gawler line.

The overwhelming bulk of the new greenfields growth in the next 100 years will be in the northern suburbs.

[Ser Noit of Loit]

I heard a statistic several years ago that metropolitan Adelaide is the same size as singapore with 1/10th the population.

This might help to get an idea how large Adelaide's metropolitan area footprint is compared to other world cities.



Adelaide in the middle
London top left
Berlin top right
Melbourne to the left of Adelaide
Calcutta to the right of Adelaide
Toronto and Rome to the right of Calcutta
Tokyo above adelaide
Sydney to right of Tokyo
Detroit bottom right
Moscow below adelaide
Mexico City below left of adelaide

Forgotton the others, someone else might be able to work it out

When you see it like this it really shows how inefficient we have been with our land use. Even compared to other Aust cities we are out of control

In my opinion the implementation of the urban growth boundary for Adelaide has been a great move.

Cheers

Yes it's a decade old post. However I'm very interested in seeing this map so does anyone have a link? The one here doesn't work anymore.

[arki]

^^^
Here's an image that has been floating around for a few years.



Not sure how accurate it is; I feel like Sydney and Melbourne should be slightly larger than they appear on that graphic compared to the width of Adelaide. Even just a quick look at Google Maps shows the vile extent of Melbourne's sprawl.

[Goodsy]

It's not accurate, It put Newark and NYC together as 1 city. If they're going to do that then they might as well include the entire Northeast Megaopolis

[arki]

By accurate I meant to scale.

Newark is very much part of the greater NYC contiguous urban zone so its inclusion makes total sense. The 'Northeast Megalopolis' on the other hand....

[rev]

Even just a quick look at Google Maps shows the vile extent of Melbourne's sprawl.

What's vile is over crowded cities where the majority of people are forced to live in tiny apartments packed one on top of the other.

[Llessur2002]

I'd be so excited for a Postcode 3000 (or 5000) initiative to be created in Adelaide. There are so many opportunities for unique apartments in lovely heritage buildings here in the CBD. This should be a great boost to density and will offer an alternative product to new build apartments that will likely appeal to a whole new market. If I were in the market for a CBD apartment I'd be far more likely to consider a redeveloped heritage building over a new build.

Follow Melbourne’s plan for vertical living say property leaders

“WE need another Kennett. Steven Marshall can be Adelaide’s Jeff Kennett,” say two South Australia property leaders.

Heavyweight institutional sales agents Paul Van Reesema and Alistair Mackie from Colliers International (SA) are adamant that the famous “Postcode 3000” initiative by the then Melbourne Premier that began the transformation of its CBD 25 years ago, has its place in Adelaide. And right now.

“SA is set up to take in a lot of people in a short space of time, urban rezoning has created opportunities for density,” Mr Mackie said.

“There are no shortage of development sites. It’s about making the most of our infrastructure, it’s about infill.”

“From Morphett St outwards, the CBD is one large site to be redeveloped,” Mr Van Reesema said with the Thebarton section of Port Rd, heading out of Adelaide, a prime example.

The 10 hectare Bowden complex, effectively a new suburb since the government bought it 10 years ago, points the way Mr van Reesema said.

“It was a TOD (transit-oriented development maximising residential, business and leisure space near public transport). They didn’t have a firm idea at the time or what a TOD might look like.”

Interstate interest in the current sale of the five hectare Coca-Cola bottling plant, on Port Rd has been enormous Mr van Reesema said the development potential close to the CBD a huge pull.

Close by, the 6000sq m former envelope maker ES Wigg site, is another development possibility.

The shift to high density living is no longer embryonic Mr van Reesema said.

“In 10 years time we will be seeing so much more multi level residences. It’s expensive to buy into the traditional SA way of thinking, $800,000 in Parkside now.”

Vertical integration is endorsed by Property Council (SA) executive director Daniel Gannon.

“Adelaide is undergoing a transformation to vertical living as South Australians trade in their verandas for balconies.

Boutique high quality medium density developments on the fringe of the CBD like Caroma in Norwood are enjoying strong uptake he said.

“The important thing for any housing market is diversity and choice for buyers. The State Government has put in place policies that focus on Adelaide growing up rather than growing out — it’s sought to end the urban sprawl and increase densification close to town.

Developer Michael Hickinbotham offers a counter argument. The government, he says, must ensure the supply of land continues to maintain housing affordability.

“If you look at where development is happening, Angle Vale is a hot zone after recent rezonings.”

“In our Two Wells Eden project, demand is very strong. We’re a year in and already sold 30 per cent of the blocks.

“What is interesting is that the first blocks to sell in every estate are the large ones. This is the great Australian dream — people want a return to the quarter acre block he said.

Tonsley Innovation District, at the former Mitsubishi car manufacturing plant in Adelaide’s southern suburbs, is in the vanguard of vertical development, garnering 20 major awards for excellence in design, landscaping, innovation and sustainability with more than 1400 people employed on site — more than when Mitsubishi ceased manufacturing cars on the site in 2008.

In February, developer Peet launched an 11 hectare, $26 million residential development for 1200 people in 850 homes.

From: https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business ... d7df59eb41

[rev]

“WE need another Kennett. Steven Marshall can be Adelaide’s Jeff Kennett,” say two South Australia property leaders.

I stopped reading there.

Love him or hate him, Kennett had a brain. Marshall just seems to be a jelly fish used as the front man whose controlled from behind a curtain by the parties power brokers.

[rev]

Developers steer away from ‘ad hoc’ Adelaide urban infill
NEWS
The state’s urban development lobby says there should be a “reduction in general infill development”, arguing housing affordability would be helped by more master-planned communities, greenfield developments and CBD residents.

In a wide ranging submission to the state government’s expert panel review of South Australia’s planning system, the Urban Development Institute of Australia SA division (UDIA) has called for a new 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide which “must address the over reliance in housing supply of single dwelling subdivisions”.

The Institute submitted that strategic infill – significant residential developments on large land parcels such as Brompton, Bowden, Lightsview and AAMI Stadium – is preferred over demolition of old housing stock and replacement with higher density homes as it “provides optimum opportunity to master plan the regeneration of areas”.

“UDIA believes that without necessary and thorough planning, ad-hoc general infill development can adversely change the character of our existing suburbs and streets and note that much of the public discussion and policy questions raised in this review relates almost entirely to general infill,” the Institute submitted.

“The UDIA believes there should be a reduction in general infill development and refocus on strategic infill in identified sites and this should be carried out together with a more realistic appraisal of the development ready pipeline for major greenfield developments.”

The Institute, which represents developers, consultants, corporations and small companies, is one of more than 600 groups to have made a submission to the expert panel’s review, led by former UDIA SA division president John Stimson.

The review, commissioned by the Malinauskas Government in August last year, is examining contentious areas of the Planning and Design Code such as urban infill, car parking, heritage, character and trees.

A report with recommendations for reform will be handed to Planning Minister Nick Champion later this year.

The UDIA submitted that strategic infill “can assist in optimising the urban tree canopy [and] on-street car parking provision” and results in “better infrastructure co-ordination and development outcomes”.

“A new 30-Year Plan could recognise more large-scale strategic infill projects and work to unlock medium to higher density projects in appropriate areas,” it said.

“Better planned and more sustainable developments can include open space and provide for suitable infrastructure upgrades.

“Similarly, there should be a more strategic commitment to revitalising the City of Adelaide with more residents.”

According to a 2021 PlanSA report, general infill accounted for 37 per cent of all net dwelling increase in Greater Adelaide from 2010 to 2019.

Strategic infill accounted for 30 per cent while greenfield sites only contributed 19 per cent.

In gross terms, 49,600 new general infill dwellings were constructed from 2010 to 2019, compared to 22,600 strategic infill dwellings.

UDIA SA division CEO Pat Gerace told InDaily more work needed to be done to identify strategic infill and greenfield locations if the “reliance” on general infill subdivisions is to be reduced.

“What that type of [general infill] housing does, if it’s relied on too much, it does create a lot of angst within existing suburbs and communities where you see the impacts that are not catered for in respect to traffic management [or] where there’s no new open space created,” Gerace said.

“So you could see suburb after suburb being redeveloped where houses are knocked down and rebuilt, but no real increase in amenity or investment in that particular area as it relates to infrastructure.”

According to the PlanSA report, the top areas for general infill between 2010 and 2020 were Campbelltown (estimated net dwelling increase of 552), Morphett Vale (489), Seaton (478) and Magill (375).

The top areas for strategic infill were the Adelaide CBD (4800 new dwellings), Lightsview (2228 new dwellings), Mawson Lakes (1693 new dwellings) and the Urban Corridor (1529 new dwellings).

“When you can identify those (strategic infill and greenfield sites) and you can move quickly, what we can do is reduce the reliance on those houses that are knocked down and rebuilt,” Gerace said.

“We don’t believe that should be such a significant reliance on that particular type of supply for housing.”

Gerace said a lack of “development-ready land” has put “pressure on housing affordability”.

He also said the CBD “can play a role in terms of having more people living in it”.

“We do need to have more people living in our CBD to be able to keep workers in particular to be able to service all the things that we enjoy,” he said.

“To have more people live in the CBD, I believe it needs to be a lifestyle choice and a lifestyle destination, more so than just a place that people commute to for work.

“Unless and until you’ve got that vibrancy for residents, it’s always going to be a bit of a challenge.”

The UDIA also submitted that the Planning Commission’s five-year reviews of potential new land supply in Environment and Food Production Areas “is simply too infrequent”.

“This is, and will continue to be, a foundational issue to the inadequacies in land supply across Greater Adelaide and prolong the housing affordability crisis,” it said.

The Institute is not the only group to call on the planning review to consider an urban infill rethink.

The Liberal Party submitted to the review last month that “increasing subdivisions in residential areas has resulted in the loss of established trees and gardens, increased stormwater run-off, pressure on existing council infrastructure, lack of on road carparking, and concerns in the community about the changes to the amenity and liveability of neighbourhoods”.

The public consultation period for the expert panel review ended on Friday, December 16, although councils can still provide submissions until January 30 due to November’s local government elections.

https://indaily.com.au/news/2023/01/13/ ... an-infill/

[SBD]

In suburbs near me, including in Mr Champion's electorate, I can think of four "strategic infill" developments on former school sites (2x primary, 2x high), and three new (<12 years) greenfield public schools in urban sprawl developments (2x B-12 and one B-6) and not far away a lot more greenfield residential development that will need more schools soon as I believe at least two of those new schools are at capacity.

So the sites of the 1950s-1970s schools are becoming residential, with new 2010s and 2020s schools built in the newer suburbs further out in the sprawl. The older sites presumably allowed walking/cycling from most of their catchment without parents having to do a motorised school run. I doubt that will be true for the people living on the former school sites.

[gnrc_louis]

It’s our illustrious planning minister again, we’re in safe hands! https://indaily.com.au/news/2023/02/16/ ... an-sprawl/

[Norman]

I would give some of the blame for this to the developers. Instead of focusing on the corridors (except for Churchill Road and Prospect Road), developers have been picking the low-lying fruit, subdividing old post-war houses, and building two or three new houses. This has caused a lot of issues with local communities who see this as poor densification and the destruction of the tree canopy, all which are valid points.

If the infill focus can be brought onto the corridors rather than general suburbia, which is what the 30-year plan intended in the first place, we might get some better outcomes.