Housing Developments | Northern Suburbs

[Norman]

It's still 30% sprawl and 70% Infill in the Greater Adelaide plan.

[fabricator]

It's still 30% sprawl and 70% Infill in the Greater Adelaide plan.

And no attempt to deal with the storm water problems infill and high density housing creates. Actually the Gawler River is prone to flooding, but this development should be safe from that.

[Wayno]

any mention of TOD-like density near the Concordia railway station?

[stumpjumper]

I seem to remember a general view against the simple extension of Adelaide to the north and south, which is exactly what this is.

How ridiculous to commute 50kms from your city job to your dormitory in Concordia and pass at the 25km mark a perfectly good satellite city that was designed for higher density but was never given it.

In the late 1950's when Alec Ramsay and his small team designed Elizabeth, they were well aware of the process of infill, increasing density etc. The sewers in Elizabeth were deliberately oversized, and the 600-800sqm allotments were in many cases designed to have cul-de-sacs built along the back fence lines, allowing redevelopment of the back yards with courtyard housing.

The flexible zoning (down to 200sqm per block) in Elizabeth allows for smaller allotments which would increase the value of many properties in Elizabeth and thus the wealth of the whole area.

Moreover, the 'CBD' of Elizabeth is spacious and could take a lot more, higher buildings.

Elizabeth has excellent rail and road connections to the city and industrial distribution points, and it has an adjacent industrial area to provide jobs - an area where space for new industry is definitely available (Bridgestone, possible future contraction of GMH). It even has 1100 ha of vacant land near the Edinburgh defence site.

Elizabeth has jobs - Concordia has none. It should be a no-brainer.

It seems that once again, the driver for the choice of Concordia is not rational urban planning, but the good old property development industry. It's a lot easier to make money out of developing a broadacre site than mucking around with infill. The taxpayer will provide as usual the extensions to the infrastructure and transport, and the ecological inefficiency of all the extra kilometres people will travel is hardly the developer's problem.

You'd think the government might stand up for the public interest, or at least the environment's interest, but not in SA, where Nathan Paine, boss of the Property Council and the Treasurer's drinking buddy is a former staffer of the Planning Minister, so it's all very, very cosy. The public interest hasn't got a hope.

I've made some enquiries, and have been told that Concordia was preferred 'at the highest level'.

Why?

What is so wrong with infilling Elizabeth??

[monotonehell]

Possibly the problem with infilling is that the land is held by disparate owners, meaning that any large scale infill would be at the mercy of those. Infill has been happening in some areas in this way, it's just a slow and organic process.

However I do find myself agreeing with most of what you wrote. Which is troubling

[Omicron]

+1

I'd also hazard a guess that much of Adelaide is conditioned against Elizabeth (in fact, the north as a whole) as a (potentially) desirable area. A new suburb with a new name and no existing preconceptions is a much easier sell, no matter how further north and ill-served by infrastructure it may be.

[Queen Anne]

It seems that once again, the driver for the choice of Concordia is not rational urban planning, but the good old property development industry. It's a lot easier to make money out of developing a broadacre site than mucking around with infill.

Yep, I agree too.

After living here in the US (where the sprawl is unbelievable and pretty much universally garbage) this makes me hopping mad. Concordia might be envisioned as a self contained town and it might have a rail link, but in the cold light of day it's still sprawl. And I can't believe how ready we seem to be to rezone rural land - that's really scary to me.

Imo, SA can and must do better than this, but how to make those in charge listen? It seems the general population is just supposed to sleep-walk through their lives and stay out of the way..

[rhino]

What is so wrong with infilling Elizabeth??

It's Elizabeth.

But in the end, I agree with you. And, like Mono, that in itself troubles me a little.

[Prince George]

Possibly the problem with infilling is that the land is held by disparate owners, meaning that any large scale infill would be at the mercy of those. Infill has been happening in some areas in this way, it's just a slow and organic process.

But we don't need residences for 40,000 people immediately, even this greenfield development isn't going to provide that. These sites are going to be developed over a period of years anyway.

Now suppose the proposal was that Mcquarie group engage in some large scale urban infill program, how could that be made to work? (Outside of easy examples like Bowden or Cheltenham) Could they make some program with a standing offer to purchase some amount of land from people's property based on their property's current assessable value? Perhaps in the current economic climate, with many households struggling to support large mortgages, there may be many takers for such an offer. Obviously, I'm completely talking through my hat, but I'm trying to imagine a way that an organisation like McQuarie could be investing their billions of dollars into that organic process rather than dropping down a township miles from anywhere.

[rhino]

Now suppose the proposal was that Mcquarie group engage in some large scale urban infill program, how could that be made to work?

It worked for the Urban Renewal of Mitchell Park, which resulted in medium density though still on Torrens Titled allotments, and the Govt have got a plan for urban renewal at Smithfield Plains and Davoren Park (the Playford North development). How are they working?

[SRW]

+1

I'd also hazard a guess that much of Adelaide is conditioned against Elizabeth (in fact, the north as a whole) as a (potentially) desirable area. A new suburb with a new name and no existing preconceptions is a much easier sell, no matter how further north and ill-served by infrastructure it may be.

It's the damn price mechanism again.

Although almost anything, Elizabeth included, can be rehabilitated with good marketing (and development), it's cheaper to just start fresh. But it shouldn't be, and in the long run it probably isn't. So is the solution, then, to incentivise the market towards urban infill by forcing upon it the upfront costs of infrastructure provision? Or is it to manipulate the market with government as tax-payer subsidised developer? Or a mix of the two? </end thinking aloud>

It worked for the Urban Renewal of Mitchell Park, which resulted in medium density though still on Torrens Titled allotments, and the Govt have got a plan for urban renewal at Smithfield Plains and Davoren Park (the Playford North development). How are they working?

I imagine by merit of the fact that the Government, through the Housing Trust, is the majority property owner.

[stumpjumper]

I think that's a thin argument, omicron. I think it's more likely that the might of Urban Pacific (Macquarie Group) has been brought to bear on the situation.

I've spoken to Chris Hannaford (policy manager) at Playford Council who said that they felt their submission to the 30 Year Plan was overlooked in favour of the Concordia development.

And while some of the houses in Elizabeth on their typical 600-700sqm allotments have been sold to private owners, there are still hundreds in government hands. Playford is allowing subdivision down to 200sqm, which increases land values across the city.

Compared to Elizabeth, 20kms closer to Adelaide, with its public investment infrastructure already developed and with excellent passenger and freight transport connections, developed industrial area and good local employment, the Concordia development will mainly benefit the developer and will certainly cost the taxpayer millions.

What's more, Playford Council owns 1100ha of land between Elizabeth and the new Edinburgh industrial development. At 7 houses per ha less roads, plus the infill of existing areas, Elizabeth can do what Concordia can do with far less public investment, with less energy consumption in use and in a better location. At less profit to the private development industry, of course.

The Planning Institute of Australia is against the development of Concordia, recommending in their submission that growth be contained within the existing Urban Growth Limits by increasing density especially around transport nodes.

I've sent some information on the Concordia proposal to a planner mate in the UK who is presently working on increasing the population of Oxford - within its existing boundaries. His response was disbelief. He said we are ignoring every principle of good urban design and sound economics. He asked, jokingly, whether developers made the planning decisions in SA.

I believe that in fact they do.

[fabricator]

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

'Super town' will threaten Barossa

PLANS for an 18,000-home "super town" north of Adelaide threaten the heritage and character of the world-famous Barossa region, the local council claims.

Barossa Mayor Brian Hurn said the release of private plans earmarking Concordia for "large-scale sprawl-style" development "put the cart before the horse" and had been made public without the council's knowledge.

The plans, unveiled earlier this month by development company Urban Pacific, propose the construction of up to 18,000 homes, two train stations, schools and shops on a 2500 ha site on the outskirts of Gawler.

"The ad-hoc urban sprawl of Gawler would be a disastrous outcome for this visually sensitive area," Mr Hurn said.

"The negative impacts of sprawl cannot be overcome if the wrong areas are earmarked or the level of development is wrong.

"While council has endorsed further investigation into the suitability of Concordia as a growth area, any references to the scale of housing development and associated facilities are totally inappropriate at this stage.

"Planning for any level of development requires detailed attention to the regional and rural character and landscape and heritage amenity, before the extent of design and infrastructure is determined.

"Appropriate, modern urban planning principles also require a commitment to sustainable development."

Mr Hurn questioned why Urban Pacific's plans had been publicly released before there had been any consultation with the Barossa council or the community.

"We question a process that puts the cart before the horse. We hope there will be improved recognition for the role of local government so that the community can have greater confidence in relation to planning for future development," he said.

His comments come just a week after The Advertiser revealed the town of Gawler had raised alarm over State Government targets to increase the population of the Gawler and Barossa region by 139,000 over the next 30 years.

Planning and Urban Development Minister Paul Holloway is declining to comment on individual submissions to the Draft 30-year Plan for Greater Adelaide.

A final plan will be released once the Government has considered all submissions.

'Super town' :wank:
Its called a small city, or a large town. Why does everything this past week have the word 'super' added to it ?

The Barossa council are hell bent against anything which threatens their own interests.

[stumpjumper]

it's cheaper to just start fresh

SRW it's not cheaper when you include the taxpayer subsidy in the form of new infrastructure, transport extensions etc.

I'm posting a fuller response to this below.

Our state government is bowing to pressure from the private development industry which quite clearly wants to manage all development in the greater Adelaide for the next 30 years.

Read both the Property Council's 2036 report for Adelaide City and its submission to the 30 year plan. Look at the proposed governance model in each case: for Adelaide city (Gepps Cross to Darlington) a five person government appointed Authority to operate for an undetermined time. No council input, no individual or community input. For Greater Adelaide - a beefed-up LMC with the power to acquire and hold land, open and close roads etc. Neither body would be elected or be answerable to the people of SA.

It is truly frightening stuff.

The Barossa council are hell bent against anything which threatens their own interests.

Fabricator, call me an alarmist, but the entire state is being bulldozed by a conglomerate of the Property Council, private development and a compliant, hopelessly conflicted government. Read the documents (PC submission to 30 yr plan and PC's 2036 report). All benefit to private interests in form of easiest profits, huge taxpayer subsidies, no taxpayer representation, disregard of environmental costs

Concordia is a perfect example. If you disagree, why not post your justification of a broadacre development at Concordia versus infill plus 1100ha new development at Elizabeth with all its advantages.

By the way, re the 'Elizabeth stigma' argument. 30 years ago Tennyson, Henley Beach, Largs Bay, Croydon, Woodville etc were 'lower class' suburbs, as you suggest Elizabeth is today. They are now transformed into million dollar suburbs. Plenty of former housing trust suburbs have become quite upmarket nearer the cit too.

[fabricator]

The Barossa council are hell bent against anything which threatens their own interests.

Fabricator, call me an alarmist, but the entire state is being bulldozed by a conglomerate of the Property Council, private development and a compliant, hopelessly conflicted government. Read the documents (PC submission to 30 yr plan and PC's 2036 report). All benefit to private interests in form of easiest profits, huge taxpayer subsidies, no taxpayer representation, disregard of environmental costs

Concordia is a perfect example. If you disagree, why not post your justification of a broadacre development at Concordia versus infill plus 1100ha new development at Elizabeth with all its advantages.

Lets see, for once we see a proposed development that is a complete community (Concordia). Instead of the usual maze of streets with houses, then lets try and fit a bus route in somehow, oh and here is some token shopping mall, good luck getting work within 30 minutes drive.

I say we support the Concordia project 100%, its a fine example of how we should develop our EXISTING suburbs. That is self contained as far as work/play/learn is concerned, and with rail based public transport. The Bowden development looks to be another example, this time with higher density.

If you want to redevelop Elizabeth, start by building some modern office buildings around Elizabeth City Centre. The limited amount of office space in the CBD should take care of the rest.

The problems with state government and developers are nothing new, nor am I going to guess at ways to solve those sorts of problems. Look at queensland, now there is a sprawl problem. Urban sprawl is a product of land prices, or to be more precise how prices and bank lending practices force young couples to live in new houses. Again I'm not going to redesign the finance sector for you.