Not only that but the council and govt provide the other services and infrastructure (recently estimated at anywhere between $20k & $80k per block). Developer pisses off with the money while the govt & council are left with long term liabilities and the residents suffer from the resulting social isolation and sedentary lifestyle caused by poor planning.monotonehell wrote: But no it's cheaper to grade a paddock and install some plumbing.
Looking at Norman's photos, Hewett looks like much lower density than Andrews Farm. And, just for the record, there is medium density housing on the urban fringe (Andrews Farm is one place), and the cost of a medium density allotment out there is pretty much the same as a slightly larger (medium-low density)allotment in neighbouring Munno Para Downs. Some people want to live in a low density area, for reasons I have stated several times in other threads. They should be allowed this. In the main, they accept that they have to put up with less services, and weigh this against the space they have around them. They don't all live there because they have no choice, as Ash has explained.monotonehell wrote: It can't be much worse than Andrew's Farm...
By the looks of the photos it looks like any generic suburb from the last 15-20 years. Small blocks, cheap houses, no trees and huge summer electricity bills. The absurd thing is that someone who lives in a city apartment probably has more accessible open space within walking distance than someone in a suburb - hundreds of hectares of parkland.Cruise wrote:people can live where they want, you wouldnt even look at Hewitt or Freeling if you wanted to live in an apartment, some people want space (at the cost of less services) that's life
but those parklands don't belong to them, although some may think they do....Bulldozer wrote:By the looks of the photos it looks like any generic suburb from the last 15-20 years. Small blocks, cheap houses, no trees and huge summer electricity bills. The absurd thing is that someone who lives in a city apartment probably has more accessible open space within walking distance than someone in a suburb - hundreds of hectares of parkland.Cruise wrote:people can live where they want, you wouldnt even look at Hewitt or Freeling if you wanted to live in an apartment, some people want space (at the cost of less services) that's life
Adelaide's northern saltpans will be sold for housing and offices as part of an $80 million national windfall for its owners.
Ridley Corporation yesturday anounced it would shift its salt production from land in Queensland, Victoria and South Australia - including 4000ha north of Dry Creek - to less valuable land over four years.
Commercial property agency Savills valued the offering at more than $80 million but Ridley would not disclose the value it had placed on its SA holdings.
Ridley Corporation finance director Ian Walton said it would be misleading to put a value on the Dry Creek area because the plan was still subject to further work.
"A lot of the area is currently underwater so there is a lot of work to get behind before it can be released...That area will not be developed for a long time," he said.
The company's holdings extend from Cavan in the south to Buckland Park in the north - nearly 50km of coast and 4000ha in the city's fastest-growing region.
While property values remain below the country's median house price, a masterplan development could add substantial value and release land into a land-hungry market. Dry Creeks median house price increased 3 per cent to $200,000 last year. L J Hooker agent Cynthia Sajkunovic said any residential development in the area would be a boon for first home buyers.
"Affordable housing only 15 minutes from the city will give first home buyers an excellent opportunity," she said.
"It might not be their first choice but it is an excellent stepping stone into the real estate market."
But Australian Contaminated Land Consultants Association state president Steve Kiranovs said whoever was developing the site would first have to prove it was fit for use".
As I understand it, the whole area is just below sea level (ie 0.5-2m) I'm not sure how much. The land would have to be reclaimed-soil added to raise to above sea level. This will obviously have a cost attached, which would be why it has not been proposed until now (now that land prices have elevated to a point at which the land can be reclaimed and a profit made.Ho Really wrote:Yes, is it fit for use? Isn't there a possibility it can be flooded by saltwater?
Cheers
I reckon they are wasting their time (and money). Build up (2 to 5 storeys) along existing inner city rail corridors and through in a few green spaces here and there.fishinajar wrote:As I understand it, the whole area is just below sea level (ie 0.5-2m) I'm not sure how much. The land would have to be reclaimed-soil added to raise to above sea level. This will obviously have a cost attached, which would be why it has not been proposed until now (now that land prices have elevated to a point at which the land can be reclaimed and a profit made.Ho Really wrote:Yes, is it fit for use? Isn't there a possibility it can be flooded by saltwater?
Cheers
What makes this idea so exciting is that this area is a corridor leading from the cbd that comes in contact with existing rail lines. This would be a huge opportunity to plan new communities based around a light/heavy rail transport system.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
