Housing Developments | Northern Suburbs

[stumpjumper]

Fabricrator, I still cannot understand why the government in supporting Macquarie Bank's Concordia project when infill and 'TODification' of Elizabeth would provide better accommodation more quickly, more cheaply, with less environmental load, nearer jobs, better for commuting to Adelaide, and above all without the urban sprawl which planners and governments have been trying to avoid for years.

The portion of public infrastructure at Concordia to be provided by local authorities will have to be paid for (out of borrowings - there will at first be no 'bank' of residential rates built up) at the expense of other work. A new town at Concordia is an expensive option for local and state government, and will continue to cost in carbon.

The Elizabeth CBD was designed to be built up. Even the sewers in the streets of Elizabeth are oversized to allow for future increased density. There is another 1100ha of council owned land adjacent, zoned for redevelopment. It's got its own adaptable industrial base. It's 20km nearer the city. Infilling it will not contribute to urban sprawl.

I must be thick as a brick, but other than the fact that Macquarie Bank would not make as much money out of it if they took it on as they will at Concordia, what is wrong with infilling Elizabeth??

I have looked at it from every angle - I cannot see the advantage of the Concordia project, other than to Macquarie Bank.

Incidentally, Urban Pacific (Macquarie Bank) recently became a major cash donor to the state government through SA Progressive Business Pty Ltd. The actual amount does not have to be disclosed at present.

Put me out of my misery - make a case for Concordia.

Here are the main points for Elizabeth, for your demolition...

- large allotments (600-700sqm av, some 800sqm) which can resubdivided down to 200sqm per dwelling
- substantial government ownership of properties
- 1100ha of adjacent flexibly-zoned development space between Elizabeth and Edinburgh.
- easy commuting distance to Adelaide
- existing infrastructure - roads, power, lighting, sewer, water supply - designed in the 1960's by SA Housing Trust specifically to cope with higher density
- existing sewage treatment can cope with 40,000 extra households
- an existing 'CBD', also designed to take higher density and zoned for multi-level development
- an existing adjacent industrial zone and job source with vacant factory space and capacity for further development
- proximity to interstate road, rail and sea transport connections
- excellent retail facilities including bulky goods
- schools already established
- excellent passenger transport facilities
- well-developed community social and sporting infrastructure
- established sense of community
- minimal need for taxpayers' funds
- increase in private property values in Elizabeth, existing landholders benefit
- infill requires no loss of productive agricultural land
- support from local and nearby councils and community
- low environmental cost in both construction and use
- support from local councils and local communities

My source of information about the adequacy of the infrastructure is a retired civil engineer who was an engineering draftsman on the small team which designed Elizabeth in the late 1950's and 1960's. Playford Council confirmed his information.

[SRW]

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

Oh, indeed, that was my point. It's cheaper to start fresh only from a developer's point of view -- it's a bargain in fact. They can leave the major upfront costs of infrastructure provision to we taxpayers, and smile all the way to the bank with the premium they've collected from new land/home sales. That ought to change. If developers were required to more fully contribute to the cost of (transport and utility as well as social) infrastructure, they might well have an incentive to pursue urban infill.

[Wilfy 2007]

Fabricrator, I still cannot understand why the government in supporting Macquarie Bank's Concordia project when infill and 'TODification' of Elizabeth would provide better accommodation more quickly, more cheaply, with less environmental load, nearer jobs, better for commuting to Adelaide, and above all without the urban sprawl which planners and governments have been trying to avoid for years.

The portion of public infrastructure at Concordia to be provided by local authorities will have to be paid for (out of borrowings - there will at first be no 'bank' of residential rates built up) at the expense of other work. A new town at Concordia is an expensive option for local and state government, and will continue to cost in carbon.

The Elizabeth CBD was designed to be built up. Even the sewers in the streets of Elizabeth are oversized to allow for future increased density. There is another 1100ha of council owned land adjacent, zoned for redevelopment. It's got its own adaptable industrial base. It's 20km nearer the city. Infilling it will not contribute to urban sprawl.

I must be thick as a brick, but other than the fact that Macquarie Bank would not make as much money out of it if they took it on as they will at Concordia, what is wrong with infilling Elizabeth??

I have looked at it from every angle - I cannot see the advantage of the Concordia project, other than to Macquarie Bank.

Incidentally, Urban Pacific (Macquarie Bank) recently became a major cash donor to the state government through SA Progressive Business Pty Ltd. The actual amount does not have to be disclosed at present.

Put me out of my misery - make a case for Concordia.

Here are the main points for Elizabeth, for your demolition...

- large allotments (600-700sqm av, some 800sqm) which can resubdivided down to 200sqm per dwelling
- substantial government ownership of properties
- 1100ha of adjacent flexibly-zoned development space between Elizabeth and Edinburgh.
- easy commuting distance to Adelaide
- existing infrastructure - roads, power, lighting, sewer, water supply - designed in the 1960's by SA Housing Trust specifically to cope with higher density
- existing sewage treatment can cope with 40,000 extra households
- an existing 'CBD', also designed to take higher density and zoned for multi-level development
- an existing adjacent industrial zone and job source with vacant factory space and capacity for further development
- proximity to interstate road, rail and sea transport connections
- excellent retail facilities including bulky goods
- schools already established
- excellent passenger transport facilities
- well-developed community social and sporting infrastructure
- established sense of community
- minimal need for taxpayers' funds
- increase in private property values in Elizabeth, existing landholders benefit
- infill requires no loss of productive agricultural land
- support from local and nearby councils and community
- low environmental cost in both construction and use
- support from local councils and local communities

My source of information about the adequacy of the infrastructure is a retired civil engineer who was an engineering draftsman on the small team which designed Elizabeth in the late 1950's and 1960's. Playford Council confirmed his information.

stumpjumper,
I believe that not only will Urban Pacific make a lot of money out of this development, but so will the Barossa Council and they have been working with Urban Pacific since early 2008 so it is a well advanced project. In a recent email I received from the barossa council CEO, he indicated the Barossa Council wanted expansion in that corner of the Council area rather than in Angaston. Be interesting to see if the project actually goes ahead.
Regards,

[stumpjumper]

I can't find evidence of council working with Urban Pacific. Council certainly worked with Connor Holmes and Planning SA to put the Framework (see below) together but counciil seems very surprised to see Urban Pacific's response to the 30 Year plan being released 'without any consultation with council'.

Very strange.

In recent years, the Barossa Council has done studies, including in 2008 the Draft Barossa Region Land Use Framework prepared jointly with Planning SA.

Yet the Barossa Council’s submission to the 30 Year Plan makes it clear that whoever wrote the 30 Year Plan was ignorant not only of the most recent data such as the Framework but also of the most basic facts about proposed and existing features of the region such as wetlands, main roads etc.

In 2008, the Council and Planning SA together with expert advice envisaged growth of 56,000 over the next 25 years.

Now, without clear justification, the government’s 30 Year Plan estimates a population growth of 136,000 over 30 years.

Iyt proposes roads randomly through viticulral areas, ignores watercourses and so on.

A comment I heard in one Council was that the 30 year plan was ‘thrown together by a couple of careless urban design students’. It even refers to itself by half a dozen permutations of 30 Year Plan.
Council was working with Planning SA and Graham Hugo from Connor Holmes in 2008 to produce the Framework (see below) but I can't find evidence of council working with Urban Pacific. I may be wroing and I'll keep looking.

I’ve now read a number of council submissions to the plan and they all display the same surprise at the erratic nature of the 30 Year Plan. I have to say after reading it several times that the 30 Year Plan document could be described as ‘shambolic’ and with an incredible number of errors and omissions. If it were prepared for me, I would want it corrected, and I would have to distrust the conclusions if they were reached using incorrect data.

The publicly supported notion of a greenbelt around Gawler appears to have gone out the door and the fully formed Urban Pacific proposal has blown in, without any consultation with the Barossa Council but with the apparent backing of the government.

Some government documents have the status of gospels. The 30 Year Plan seems inconsistent, inaccurate and rushed.

This isn’t a critique of the 30 Year Plan, however, but a raising of a question about the sudden increase in the size of the Concordia development (apart from whether it should be built at all), about the disappearance of the green belt the government approved only a year ago, and about the quality of the finished 30 Year Plan as a whole.

[P.K.]

Next step in huge Two Wells project
By Lauren Parker

Council and developers will work together to develop a shared vision for the expansion of Two Wells.
District Council of Mallala endorsed a Heads of Agreement between council and Hickinbotham at its meeting on Monday evening, and the organisations will work collaboratively over the next nine months to develop a detailed plan for Two Wells, in consultation with the local community.
The planned housing estate includes about 2500 homes built on the eastern side of Port Wakefield Road, featuring open spaces, walking trails and stormwater management facilities.
Council chief executive officer, Charles Mansueto, said the Heads of Agreement formalised council’s and Hickinbotham’s commitment to create a sustainable and community focused development.
“This is the first step to develop the detail of a shared vision,” Mr Mansueto said. “The planned development aligns with council’s strategic plan for vibrant and growing communities in our district, and for improving services to local communities.”
Importantly, Mr Mansueto said the agreement would ensure the development north of Two Wells was orderly, well-serviced, and integrated with the existing township, protecting and conserving its unique country-town character.
“We look forward to seeking community input as detailed plans are developed,” Mr Mansueto said.
Hickinbotham Group managing director, Michael Hickinbotham, said working collaboratively with the District Council of Mallala would achieve the best result for the region.
“We want an innovative development that retains the township identity and charm of Two Wells, boosts housing choice and creates quality living environments,” Mr Hickinbotham said.
“The planned development is consistent with council’s strategic plan and also with State government’s draft 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide.
“It will create exciting local opportunities, including jobs and more services.”
Mr Hickinbotham said the Heads of Agreement formalised the company’s commitment to work closely with council and to consult the community to achieve an environmentally sustainable and high quality development.
The Heads of Agreement sets out the process for preparing a master plan for the development, supported by a Development Plan Amendment and an infrastructure deed. A development application will be lodged with council once the DPA process has been completed.
In addition, the agreement seeks to ensure future development doesn’t overburden existing council resources and infrastructure, ensuring the sustainable delivery of services to the community over the long term.
In a report to council, environment and development services manager, Henri Mueller, said the Heads of Agreement also enlisted co-operation and support for the development of the Two Wells Urban Design Framework, and maintained the existing town centre as the main focus of retail and community activity in the district.
The next stages in the planning process will be the completion of the master plan report by Hickinbotham for the northern expansion area, and an independent review by the council.
The Light River Flood Mapping Project currently being undertaken by council and funded by council, Hickinbotham, the Federal Natural Disaster Mitigation Program and the State Stormwater Management Authority will also provide information needed for the design of flood mitigation and management in the development area.
It is expected council and Hickinbotham will host forums in the near future to present plans to the community.

[crawf]

Future suburb of Adelaide?

[Omicron]

Is there some sort of Really Quite Awful New Suburb That's Miles Away From Anywhere You'd Actually Want To Go competition that I missed?

[AtD]

More car dependant greenfields sprawl.

[Shuz]

Is there some sort of Really Quite Awful New Suburb That's Miles Away From Anywhere You'd Actually Want To Go competition that I missed?

No kidding. Off the top of my head I can think of...

Buckland Park - 15,000
Two Wells - 2,500
Gawler "Super Town" - 30,000

Just a bit shy of 50,000 (47,500) all up, but still - I guess if we want 2 million by 2050 (which we're on track to achieve by 2036) These people are gunna have to be put somewhere. What I hate about this though is both Two Wells and the Super Town are outside of the Urban Growth Boundary. What's the f_____ point in having it there in the first place if all these are just going to go beyond it?

[crawf]

I thought the Buckland Park project had been axed?

[Shuz]

According to Planning SA, project seems alive and well?
http://www.planning.sa.gov.au/index.cfm ... B13562BF61

[Prince George]

There was two different developments each by the name of "Buckland Park"; the older one is gone, the newer one is not.

[Hooligan]

Ripping up prime agricultural land for housing = Yum

[fabricator]

Oh well we can always relocate the farms to the unviable semi arid areas.

[rhino]

Do you mean to tell me that there's something that Melbourne has done (created huge housing towns (Cranbourne, Pakenham, Melton, Werribee) on the outskirts of the Metro Area) that you guys actually don't want for Adelaide??? I'm astounded! Reading these forums is usually so "Melbourne has it - We should have it!"

I'm not totally against the Two Wells development - it really depends on whether it's designed as a suburb of Adelaide (which I am against), or as growing the town (which I have no problem with). This would involve industry re-locating out there, or new industies starting out there.