Housing Developments | Northern Suburbs

[AtD]

Existing thread here: http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... 47&p=41745

[Cruise]

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 82,00.html

ABOUT 2500 new homes will be built in Adelaide's north after the State Government announced the release of a 219ha parcel of land at Gawler East.

The land, bordered on one side by Calton and Balmoral Rd, was rezoned by the Government to allow for the new residential development, which will be about half the size of Mawson Lakes.

Urban Development and Planning Minister Paul Holloway said the release of the land was part of the Government's plan to provide more affordable housing.

"The rezoning of this land acknowledges the continued strong demand for new homes to Adelaide's north and will help generate jobs growth in South Australia's building industry," he said.

The land, to be developed by Delfin Lend Lease, will increase the number of homes in Gawler by 25 per cent.

Delfin Lend Lease regional general manager Richard Osborne said the development was worth "hundreds of millions of dollars" and would take at least 10 years to complete.

The development will also see the remediation of a quarry on Calton Rd.

Mr Osborne said construction on the project is expected to begin within 12 months and the first homes completed by late 2009.

This should make the anti-sprawl "lets make everyone live in shoe boxes" crowd get upset.

[SRW]

I actually don't have a problem with this proposal so long as it is properly integrated with the Gawler township.

I have doubts that that will happen, however.

[Will409]

Public transport wise, the area won't be too difficult to connect up to the main system for one very important reason. An extension of the Gawler Central line is easily possible and can be done very quickly (unlike a Noarlunga line extension on both counts). The reason for this is because of the Angaston/Penrice railway which runs through the Barossa and connects with the TransAdelaide system at Gawler Central. The line is inplace and is used only once a day by the limestone train that runs to Port Adelaide.

There has been intense discussion on this idea on Railsa and it has been suggested that an extended service could be run from Gawler Central over around 4/5kms or so with two new stations established at Concordia and Gawler East. There are a couple of issues with this idea though.

- Track condition which has been stated as not being upto passenger carrying standard (although parts of the Gawler Central line leave you scratching your head).
- Lack of stations at the two localities mentioned.
- Rollingstock shortages to operate the extended service. Heck, we are short of railcars at the present time.

Never the less, a rail link through the new area (should one be established) can be done easily and reasonably cheaply since the track itself is already there.

[crawf]

I support this development for over 5000 new residents, however I want to see it integrated well with the town and the suburban rail network extended to this housing estate.

I hope the Gawler Town Council is currently working out a long term plan for the township and CBD, considering Gawlers population is going to go well past 30,000 thanks to Delfin project, future $1bn Evanston project and other housing estates. Plus then theres the major residential projects nearby at Blakeview, Playford North etc which will bring thousands of people into the area.

Gawler population - 20,006 (2006 Census)

[ozisnowman]

ENVIROMENTAL VANDALISM AND UNSUSTAINABILITY come to mind about this announcement

My question is why does the government not try to persuade Delfin to buy the clipsal site
which is on sale and build a high density TOD as they have been suggesting lately.
Time for urban sprawl should stop and high density around the CBD should be promoted

Wonder how the residence of the new Gawler East will feel when they are hit with the
predicted $8 a litre petrol in about 10 years time when this development is expected
to be completed. My prediction is that those poor fools will be mostly bankrupt and
there houses worthless as no one will be able to afford to live that far from the CBD.
Meanwhile Delfin Lend Lease will be laughing all the way to the bank.

[joshzxzx]

My question is why does the government not try to persuade Delfin to buy the clipsal site
which is on sale and build a high density TOD as they have been suggesting lately.
Time for urban sprawl should stop and high density around the CBD should be promoted

I completely agree with the above quote, lets build higher dinsity building near public transport!

This gov has got to stop talking shit and actually do some work!

[Queen Anne]

I don't really understand the gov's intentions very well. When they announced the TODS, they spoke of the success of Portland, Oregon, where they got their inspiration for the idea. But as far as I know, Portland has an "urban growth boundary" as part of what they call their "Smart Growth Policy". I don't really understand how, with our small population, we can make a success out of increasing urban density, while also releasing new land for housing development.

In addition, it is hypocritical to announce the TODS as part of an environmentally sustainable future, while at the same time actively promoting sprawl. Absolutely, we need lower cost housing options but the gov's decisions seem all over the place to me.

I agree with the last two posters.

[Shuz]

I too agree with the last few comments - but is it at all possible, that maybe they are encouraging growth around Gawler to make it more independent from Adelaide - treated as its own township, rather than an outer suburb of Adelaide?

[omada]

If this development is similar to the high density development in Mawson Lakes, then it ain't so bad, but if it is full of large single story pastiche type housing with no eaves, no insulation etc etc (ie the housing that characterises most of Adelaide) - then it will represent a lost opportunity, and a loss of decent arable land.

[No Clever Alias]

I don't really understand the gov's intentions very well. When they announced the TODS, they spoke of the success of Portland, Oregon, where they got their inspiration for the idea. But as far as I know, Portland has an "urban growth boundary" as part of what they call their "Smart Growth Policy". I don't really understand how, with our small population, we can make a success out of increasing urban density, while also releasing new land for housing development.

In addition, it is hypocritical to announce the TODS as part of an environmentally sustainable future, while at the same time actively promoting sprawl. Absolutely, we need lower cost housing options but the gov's decisions seem all over the place to me.

I agree with the last two posters.

View the TOD proposal as a convenient distraction from the real agenda of the Planning Review... developers asked for, lobbied and are getting a rolling 25 year supply of greenfield land. Every year more land needs to be added to the urban area to keep that supply at 25 years! With that occurring...

[crawf]

Not everyone wants to live in the CBD or inner suburbs, enough said.

[AtD]

Not everyone wants to live in the CBD or inner suburbs, enough said.

Everyone wants total tax cuts, too. Doesn't make it a good idea.

[Cruise]

ENVIROMENTAL VANDALISM AND UNSUSTAINABILITY come to mind about this announcement

My question is why does the government not try to persuade Delfin to buy the clipsal site
which is on sale and build a high density TOD as they have been suggesting lately.
Time for urban sprawl should stop and high density around the CBD should be promoted

Blah, blah, blah

The government should be doing all it can to encourage high density developments, that said some people will perfer a house, it's a lifestyle choice really. some like living near the city, some don't. just like how some people like dogs and others like cats better.

[AtD]

Blah, blah, blah

The government should be doing all it can to encourage high density developments, that said some people will perfer a house, it's a lifestyle choice really. some like living near the city, some don't. just like how some people like dogs and others like cats better.

The 'choice' argument doesn't hold, because sprawl is taxpayer funded.