It would be more interesting still if you had a better understanding of the issues. I apologise if this sounds rude - I'm not trying to offend or annoy you, but because you've declared your intention to go into local government, I think it's important that you understand the opposing argument. From what you've written, it is clear that currently you do not.cleverick wrote:This is getting very interesting.
I know you are at uni, though I don't know which one or how flexible your program is. But if you can, I strongly recommend you study Urban Economics (ECON1005) at UniSA.
You are assuming there are enormous subsidies, but that doesn't mean there actually are!Firstly, I would like to say that people misinterpret me when they hear me say I want to restrict the urban boundary. I'm not advocating we compulsorily acquire entire suburbs, just slowly cut them off from enormous government subsidies in the form of free roads and subsidised sewerage, water, phone, gas, electricity and water connections.
As others have already pointed out, people pay for roads. People also pay for their sewerage, water, phone, gas, electricity and water connections.
There is negligible value in having discrete urban boundaries. And even if there's space to convert the suburbia in between them to farmland, it would be totally idiotic to do so. That doesn't mean there won't be farms within the suburbia - there probably will, and aquaponics has great potential: see http://www.abc.net.au/tv/newinventors/txt/s1776276.htmAnd of course there is value in having Gawler, Elizabeth and Adelaide as discrete urban boundaries: there is space for farmland between them.
We export far more food than we import. We'd export far more if we had more rain, as it is water, not land, that is the limiting factor to how much we can grow.If we want to be a state which makes things, we shouldn't be buying our food from overseas.
No, the real reason is that we haven't invested enough in rail infrastructure and our services are not frequent enough.In a world where transport costs are increasing and the price of food skyrocketing, it makes sense to grow our own really close to the population centre. Like everyone in Europe does. (Which is why PT in Adelaide sucks in comparison to PT in Europe.)
I think you should read this. I'm not suggesting you take it at face value - the reviewer's as biased against high density development as you are for it - but you should consider why the findings did not match your assumptions.Suburban infrastructure is much more costly than urban. To supply the same number of dwellings, a much larger area must be covered. As for the costs associated with its upkeep: I can see your point about density making it more costly, but I don't think you're right. (I have no evidence.)
When I said redcoup I meant regain it from those who directly benefit so that no subsidy is needed. They recoup a lot through the Land Management Corporation, which buys up land around the urban fringes while it's cheap, leases it back to farmers, and then gradually releases it for housing at an enormous profit.Aidan, the government recoups the costs from the subsidies to suburbia by taxing corporations' profits, with payroll tax, the GST, petrol excise and so on and so forth. Taxes generally would be much lower if people lived more densely. This is what I mean by the CBD subsidising the suburbs.
Others have already pointed out how reality contradicts that claim. But there's more to it than that. Firstly, shopping strips are no more likely to serve a community than malls are - those shopping strips are often situated along urban arterials and rely on the passing trade of motorists.Omicron, Jetty Rd is in Glenelg, which, in more extreme moments of despair, I advocate should also be a discrete urban boundary of its own. That would make Jetty Rd its own CBD, and actually goes further to proving my point than disproving. I am all for such shopping strips, and completely against malls. Malls require cars because you're meant to buy so much at one it's impractical to use PT, even if it were provided. And while shopping strips develop along local lines to serve a community, malls are designed to serve as the CBD of a large area of suburbs- some of which will be a long way away, and since they're not the CBD, public transport cannot efficiently serve them. (In the sense that the density of traffic is not enough, and the routes will not go there.)
Secondly, you can usually buy just as much at shopping strips than malls, but for equivalent functionality you may have to reposition the car occasionally! And just because you can buy more in one go at a mall doesn't mean you have to. But when you do have a car with you, as most people do, it makes sense to use it as efficiently as possible - if you buy more this time, you won't have to make so many trips in future.
Thirdly, public transport must serve more than just the CBD, because people want to go to places other than the CBD.
Fourthly, having bus routes converge on malls facilitates cross suburban travel.
Fifthly, bus routes are much better utilized when they have major destinations at both ends, as otherwise they'd always be nearly empty near the outer end of the route. And that's another reason why having discreet urban boundaries between self contained suburbs is not such a good idea!
No it isn't, it's a historical advantage of Adelaide! We've had the space and cheap public transport to give working class people the opportunity to escape from the cramped, expensive and often unhealthy City, while still being able to easily access it.Aidan, developing more land *is* a mistake of the past.
Not as the term is generally taken to mean. I think it's important that transit serves the entire conurbation including exurbs and surrounding country towns, but this could be in the form of ensuring new development is in existing towns and along bus routes.Are you advocating TODs outside the outer suburbs,
Mostly right, except that some outer suburbs are suitable for high density development (think of Noarlunga Centre: it has the second biggest mall in the southern suburbs, but if housing is developed there as is now planned, residents would have no need for a car at all) and some inner suburbs are not (as they were built as low density, and changing that would destroy the character of the area).a band of low-density outer suburbs, the dense inner suburbs and the CBD?
Whether or not people are isolated depends on the quality of public transport and the location of services.And this is meant not to isolate people?
...Mostly by the state government, and there's nothing wrong with that. And I'm not advocating unconstrained urban growth.To consider expanding the urban boundary results in speculation and land banking.
Changing land use is likely to disadvantage some species but benefit others. We do have control over what is done, so we can ensure that whatever development is done accommodates the needs of threatened species.To do it intensifies the problem and starts the cycle again. It endagers some native species,
That is a serious issue that needs to be kept in mind when deciding what development can go ahead, but it is not necessarily a reason to disallow development.it puts suburbia too close to the bushfire line,
And that is part of the reason for having the Hills Face Zone where development is severely restricted. Similarly it's a reason why the sprawl is not being allowed to engulf McLaren Vale. But there's a big difference between protecting high value agricultural areas and halting the encroachment into low value agricultural areas.it results in a loss of productive land for farming. While not everywhere on the plains gets enough water for fruit trees, that's no reason not to plant them where they will get enough!
With a direct train service between these two places, many in Aldinga would be able to say that they are not isolated from Gawler! It's rather a long journey, but that isn't a problem because those from Aldinga will seldom want to go to Gawler - it's Adelaide that's important to not be isolated from.Even with fast, efficient transportation, someone in Aldinga will never be able to say they are not isolated from Gawler.
But allowing more houses to be built will ease the affordability crisis, even if they're not subsidized at all. And making a conurbation bigger does not damage the city on a human scale at all - it just means there's more of it. And you may not have noticed it, but not all of suburbia is the same!Our city has lost all human scale, and is developing a monstrous life of its own, fed at times by Rann and others acceptance of developers' claims that to build a few houses out at Playford will ease the housing affordability crisis.
/rant for now
Our city still has its human scale. Replacing it all with a few small high density cities would change all that..
