[PRO] Roseworthy Satellite City 43,300 homes

[rev]

Alright finally able to get into the article..

61,000 new homes north and south of Adelaide as laws pass removing urban growth boundaries for housing

A controversial housing boundary has been cut, paving the way for 61,500 new homes and a new regional city. But what about the roads, water pipes and hospitals?

Tens of thousands of new homes will be built north and south Adelaide over the next 30 years, including a new satellite city at Roseworthy that will one day be larger than Mount Gambier.

New laws have passed parliament opening up parcels of land to developers by exempting them from SA’s legislated Environment and Food Protection Areas.

Removing the urban boundary paves the way for about 61,500 new homes in greenfield estates, including about 43,300 around Two Wells and Roseworthy, north of Gawler.

Murray Bridge has the potential for about 10,4000 new homes and 7000 new homes can be built at Victor Harbor, Goolwa and Middleton.

While the government hailed it as a “massive moment” for SA’s future, local mayors were cautious, opposing what they called the loss of prime agricultural land – a move also blasted by the state’s peak farming bodies in March.

Light Regional Council acting Mayor Michael Phillips-Ryder said the plan would require significant new infrastructure at Roseworthy and his council was firmly opposed to the loss of prime farming land.

“While it may sound great to come out with a media release announcing tens of thousands of new homes in and around Roseworthy, fundamentally the infrastructure problem needs to be solved first,” he said.

“And secondly, the housing solution shouldn’t come at the expense of agriculture.

“The agricultural land that surrounds Roseworthy is … vital to the local and state economy, and to South Australia’s food security.”

Mr Phillips-Ryder said the area would require large investments to build infrastructure for needs including water supply and healthcare, but he noted the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan, which had earmarked the land for development, was a multi-decades plan.

Victor Harbor Mayor Moira Jenkins said the areas earmarked for houses in her council were “very much important agricultural areas”.

She said the council was developing a plan to provide alternative housing land options.

Murray Bridge Mayor Wayne Thorley was more supportive, saying most of the earmarked land in his area was not used for commercial properties and the town had been “pretty well hamstrung by the Environment and Food Protection Zone”.


Where the new homes would go in Two Wells. Supplied


… and the plans for new homes in Roseworthy.


The new housing areas for Goolwa and Middleton.


The new housing areas for Victor Habor. Supplied

Housing Minister Nick Champion said the passage of the Bill “basically means that we have 30 years worth of housing growth cleared of any of the impediment of the environment and food protection area”.

Industry modelling showed axing the controversial urban growth boundary would inject about $1bn annually into the SA economy and create more than 6000 jobs.

The minister on Wednesday lined up with housing and construction industry heads to spruik the new laws, with Urban Development Institute of Australia SA boss Liam Holding saying he had been strongly against the protection laws from the start.

“We were saying from the outset this would have a negative impact on housing affordability and that’s what we’ve seen,” Mr Golding said.

“We’ve seen land supply go way down and housing affordability go way down. Since the EFPA was brought in 2017, the seven years since then, we’ve seen property prices go up by 87 per cent.”

Master Builders CEO Will Frogley said the industry had been calling for the change.

“Today is a great day not only for home buyers but for more than 90,000 South Australians who are directly employed in the building industry,” he said.

Liberal Party leader Vincent Tarzia said the same housing and construction industry figures supported further amendments proposed by his party, which he said would have allowed more than 10,000 new homes.

When the protection areas were created, the government was aiming for 85% of growth through infill development – a policy jettisoned by Premier Peter Malinauskas when he introduced the legislation in March.

The government said revising the EFPA represents a loss of less than 1 per cent of agricultural lands around greater Adelaide.

Over the next 30 years, SA will need about 315,000 more homes to accommodate an extra 670,000.

The government is also updating policies surrounding the urban-rural interface to support ongoing agricultural activities while addressing issues like bushfire protection, dust, and noise between farms and residential areas.

Land removed from the EFPA protection will be rolled out slowly for housing to ensure rezoning occurs in a staged, infrastructure-ready manner.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/subscrib ... nt-2-SCORE

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PAx8U6 ... 6CxJo/view

[PeFe]

As for proposed Roseworthy and Gawler developments they are just "new suburbs" in the middle of nowhere (especially Roseworthy)
They are not "new cities"...they will come with the same issues that all other outer suburbs developments come with....except magnified by 10.

[Mpol02]

Yeah really trite.

[rev]

These developments are needed. I know some people would prefer everyone live in an apartment, but the majority of people don't want that (as evidenced by the fact we aren't seeing the CBD filled with apartment buildings but we are seeing huge developments of detached housing).

It's looking like Two Wells, Roseworthy will eventually just be the outer suburbs of Adelaide, and really that's the only place possible for the growth expected.
Hopefully they take steps to ensure the correct infrastructure particularly schools, hospitals, emergency services and public transport is provisioned for in future developments.
I think given the size of what's to come potentially, there's good potential for a train line to run across the suburbs without necessarily needing to terminate at ARS.

Personally I'd like to see more of what they're planning for Victor Harbor/Goolwa. That area should be treated as one larger urban area/regional city anyway.
We need more population being diversified, spread out to regional centres. The potential intrastate economic activity imho is something not taken seriously enough in SA.

[SBD]

I drove up the Horrocks Highway today past the four new housing estates. The map above only shows three, as the Villawood one at the southern end is in Gawler Belt not Roseworthy, but is directly across Kangaroo Flat Road from the Southern precinct of Roseworthy Gardens. St Yves is next, with a private school campus as the only visible new community infrastructure, then the northern precinct of Roseworthy Gardens. The state government contribution so far seems to be a large roundabout on the road-train-approved highway. No traffic lights (yet?). All the new development so far appears to be between Twartz Road (near the railway line) and Horrocks Highway (a.k.a. Main North Road).

I haven't seen any evidence of a bike path/bike lane/pedestrian route between the new developments and a public school or a shop in either Roseworthy or Hewitt/Willaston. The highway has a sealed shoulder, but kerbs and K-rails prevent any option of getting out of the way, and now there's a raised median but only one lane each way so it is probably impossible to overtake a bike with a safe distance, even if the cyclist is as far left as possible.

On the plus side, Roseworthy is sufficiently uphill that waste water will flow away without needing to be pumped.

[5000]

I haven't seen any evidence of a bike path/bike lane/pedestrian route between the new developments and a public school or a shop in either Roseworthy or Hewitt/Willaston. The highway has a sealed shoulder, but kerbs and K-rails prevent any option of getting out of the way, and now there's a raised median but only one lane each way so it is probably impossible to overtake a bike with a safe distance, even if the cyclist is as far left as possible.

On the plus side, Roseworthy is sufficiently uphill that waste water will flow away without needing to be pumped.

Where we're going, we don't need bicycles.

[Mpol02]

No you’ll need planes.

[SouthAussie94]

No you’ll need planes.

Did someone say relocate Adelaide airport?!

[dbl96]

These developments are needed. I know some people would prefer everyone live in an apartment, but the majority of people don't want that (as evidenced by the fact we aren't seeing the CBD filled with apartment buildings but we are seeing huge developments of detached housing).

The average buyer’s first preference is not a CBD apartment. But neither is it a house in a new estate on the outskirts of Roseworthy or Two Wells.

The type of housing that the average buyer prefers is well-located and affordable Torrens title properties in established middle suburbs. Essentially, townhouses and other small-scale subdivisions in existing areas. However, this is precisely the kind of development that the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan is opposed to, basically because existing residents don’t like their streets filling up with ugly box-houses and parked cars. But the fact is that most buyers would prefer to purchase one of these box-houses over an apartment or over a free-standing house in some far-flung exurb.

Marshall and others like to market places like Roseworthy and Two Wells as if by permitting these developments to go ahead, they are somehow saving the Australian Dream of a backyard with hills hoist. But the fact is that most of these properties are on postage stamp sized blocks anyway, and the houses are massive single storey things that cover the block and leave no space for a backyard anyway. At this point, people may as well be living in apartments - rather than chewing up more farmland.

[gnrc_louis]

These developments are needed. I know some people would prefer everyone live in an apartment, but the majority of people don't want that (as evidenced by the fact we aren't seeing the CBD filled with apartment buildings but we are seeing huge developments of detached housing).

The average buyer’s first preference is not a CBD apartment. But neither is it a house in a new estate on the outskirts of Roseworthy or Two Wells.

The type of housing that the average buyer prefers is well-located and affordable Torrens title properties in established middle suburbs. Essentially, townhouses and other small-scale subdivisions in existing areas. However, this is precisely the kind of development that the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan is opposed to, basically because existing residents don’t like their streets filling up with ugly box-houses and parked cars. But the fact is that most buyers would prefer to purchase one of these box-houses over an apartment or over a free-standing house in some far-flung exurb.

Marshall and others like to market places like Roseworthy and Two Wells as if by permitting these developments to go ahead, they are somehow saving the Australian Dream of a backyard with hills hoist. But the fact is that most of these properties are on postage stamp sized blocks anyway, and the houses are massive single storey things that cover the block and leave no space for a backyard anyway. At this point, people may as well be living in apartments - rather than chewing up more farmland.

Exactly - 100% agree with all of this.

[rev]

These developments are needed. I know some people would prefer everyone live in an apartment, but the majority of people don't want that (as evidenced by the fact we aren't seeing the CBD filled with apartment buildings but we are seeing huge developments of detached housing).

The average buyer’s first preference is not a CBD apartment. But neither is it a house in a new estate on the outskirts of Roseworthy or Two Wells.

The type of housing that the average buyer prefers is well-located and affordable Torrens title properties in established middle suburbs. Essentially, townhouses and other small-scale subdivisions in existing areas. However, this is precisely the kind of development that the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan is opposed to, basically because existing residents don’t like their streets filling up with ugly box-houses and parked cars. But the fact is that most buyers would prefer to purchase one of these box-houses over an apartment or over a free-standing house in some far-flung exurb.

Marshall and others like to market places like Roseworthy and Two Wells as if by permitting these developments to go ahead, they are somehow saving the Australian Dream of a backyard with hills hoist. But the fact is that most of these properties are on postage stamp sized blocks anyway, and the houses are massive single storey things that cover the block and leave no space for a backyard anyway. At this point, people may as well be living in apartments - rather than chewing up more farmland.

Of course if we're going to talk about what buyers prefer, well that's an endless debate. Some would prefer the beachside suburbs others the hills, others the leafy eastern suburbs and so on.

Whether it's in an established suburb or a new estate on the outskirts of the metropolitan area, they are still choosing a detached dwelling, not an apartment..which is the point.

If you consider new housing estate blocks as postage stamp sized, what would you refer apartments to?

[ChillyPhilly]

I look forward to planning literature in another 40 or so years, after a century of car-centred urban sprawl and development, of how developments like this, Buckland Park and more are all horribly unviable mistakes that ultimately deliver little benefit.

[rev]

I look forward to planning literature in another 40 or so years, after a century of car-centred urban sprawl and development, of how developments like this, Buckland Park and more are all horribly unviable mistakes that ultimately deliver little benefit.

Where should people live then? Should they all buy overpriced tiny apartments that are available in Adelaide because that is your world view? (not saying there's anything wrong with wanting apartment style living before you bite my head off lol)

Personally I'd like to see other 'cities' built up to be major population/urban centres in South Australia.
But the reality is that just isn't going to happen any time soon, because the economic conditions don't support that nor is there a government will for that to happen.

If we had other 'major' cities in the state, we wouldn't need to keep expanding the Adelaide metropolitan footprint, or at least not as much.
If you look at Melbourne, a city that's full of apartments, nearby Geelong is growing a lot. Yet Melbourne is still expanding.

Sydney has a lot more density in it's suburbs then Adelaide does, yet it too is growing rapidly.

But I bet most people complaining voted for Labor or Liberals, both of which support the bigger Australia project underway with mass migration/open borders that is fuelling this expansion of the major city's with urban sprawl.

[SouthAussie94]

I look forward to planning literature in another 40 or so years, after a century of car-centred urban sprawl and development, of how developments like this, Buckland Park and more are all horribly unviable mistakes that ultimately deliver little benefit.

Where should people live then? Should they all buy overpriced tiny apartments that are available in Adelaide because that is your world view? (not saying there's anything wrong with wanting apartment style living before you bite my head off lol)

Personally I'd like to see other 'cities' built up to be major population/urban centres in South Australia.
But the reality is that just isn't going to happen any time soon, because the economic conditions don't support that nor is there a government will for that to happen.

If we had other 'major' cities in the state, we wouldn't need to keep expanding the Adelaide metropolitan footprint, or at least not as much.
If you look at Melbourne, a city that's full of apartments, nearby Geelong is growing a lot. Yet Melbourne is still expanding.

Sydney has a lot more density in it's suburbs then Adelaide does, yet it too is growing rapidly.

But I bet most people complaining voted for Labor or Liberals, both of which support the bigger Australia project underway with mass migration/open borders that is fuelling this expansion of the major city's with urban sprawl.

Have a look at Google Maps imagery of Buckland Park, around Journeaux St. How many of those homes actually have a backyard? The roofed area of the house easily covers 80% of the site.

So if there is minimal backyard, what is the benefit of living here, vs living in an established area?

I imagine most of these homes are 3-4 bedroom, 2.5 bath, 2x carpark, 2x living areas. Why can't dwellings of a similar size be built within established areas?

It would be entirely possible to build equivalent sized dwellings as apartments in established areas. The living space would be comparable, the private outdoor area could be comparable (or even greater), access to services would be greatly improved, cost of transport reduced, cost to the general taxpayer (through SA Water charges/infrastructure upgrades) would be less.

Developments such as these just aren't sustainable

[rev]

I look forward to planning literature in another 40 or so years, after a century of car-centred urban sprawl and development, of how developments like this, Buckland Park and more are all horribly unviable mistakes that ultimately deliver little benefit.

Where should people live then? Should they all buy overpriced tiny apartments that are available in Adelaide because that is your world view? (not saying there's anything wrong with wanting apartment style living before you bite my head off lol)

Personally I'd like to see other 'cities' built up to be major population/urban centres in South Australia.
But the reality is that just isn't going to happen any time soon, because the economic conditions don't support that nor is there a government will for that to happen.

If we had other 'major' cities in the state, we wouldn't need to keep expanding the Adelaide metropolitan footprint, or at least not as much.
If you look at Melbourne, a city that's full of apartments, nearby Geelong is growing a lot. Yet Melbourne is still expanding.

Sydney has a lot more density in it's suburbs then Adelaide does, yet it too is growing rapidly.

But I bet most people complaining voted for Labor or Liberals, both of which support the bigger Australia project underway with mass migration/open borders that is fuelling this expansion of the major city's with urban sprawl.

Have a look at Google Maps imagery of Buckland Park, around Journeaux St. How many of those homes actually have a backyard? The roofed area of the house easily covers 80% of the site.

So if there is minimal backyard, what is the benefit of living here, vs living in an established area?

I imagine most of these homes are 3-4 bedroom, 2.5 bath, 2x carpark, 2x living areas. Why can't dwellings of a similar size be built within established areas?

It would be entirely possible to build equivalent sized dwellings as apartments in established areas. The living space would be comparable, the private outdoor area could be comparable (or even greater), access to services would be greatly improved, cost of transport reduced, cost to the general taxpayer (through SA Water charges/infrastructure upgrades) would be less.

Developments such as these just aren't sustainable

I looked at that street. Those backyards are many times larger then the average balcony on an apartment, for those apartments lucky enough to feature one.

The counter argument you guys will present is people can go to the park. Sure, I can also go to the park from my detached home and also enjoy the benefit of a backyard.
I can have a bbq and entertain outdoors in my backyard with family and friends coming over. Cant do that in an apartment.

Adelaide isn't some over crowded Asian urban centre. We have a small population, and ample land.

The benefit vs established area?
Cost for starters.
Access to the first home owners grant which is not available for established homes, plus that most established areas are beyond the threshold of the FHOG anyway.

The benefit vs apartments?
Size is one.
Size vs cost is another.
Lifestyle.

Growth and re-sale value is another factor.

The 'private outdoor area'....you mean the communal spots seen in most ads for apartments in the city, or something else?

Personally I'd love to see the City, areas like the inner harbor at Port Adelaide (instead we're getting low rise garbage), Glenelg, with dozens of apartment buildings and tens of thousands of residents. I think in those areas they'd work really well.

What I think could help as well in limiting sprawl beyond what we're going to get already, is allowing for more then 2 level homes in the suburbs. I believe most suburban areas are limited to 2 levels?
Why not allow up to 3 levels, ensure minimum garage sizes, bathrooms, bedrooms, living spaces and minimum backyard sizes.
There's already a big push to subdivide as much as possible. Problem is the majority of subdivisions are by developers and building companies, and it is driven by profit/greed.
Going up to 3 levels, block widths can be reduced. Ground level could be your garage, laundry, storage..maybe a guest/spare room or study. Second level your living spaces and third level bedrooms.
Detached dwellings still of course. But I think that's a bit of a compromise that maintains peoples desire to have a detached house on their own slice of land, but also maximises with in reason land usage. Something similar to what you could find in San Francisco but not wall to wall.