P.K. wrote:Things to consider;
- not everyone wants to on ride public transport
- some people like to drive their cars and ride their motorbikes
- some people don't like the city or the inner suburbs
- king tides have NEVER effected this area while the salt pans have been in place
- measures to prevent flooding are being put in place, but sometimes you cant stop mother nature.
(I don't think we should tear down all the buildings in Port Adelaide because it floods )
- no matter where an additional 30,000 people live around Adelaide, they will still require power and water
- how many new subdivisions around Adelaide have blocks around 800m2?
- How many people who know so much about this "god forsaken place" have every been there?
- Not everyone comments on a forum to winge like a sookyfuckinlala
Yes, yes, we know all this. Here's the thing -
If you want a place to live that accomodates driving, offers traditional homes, on traditional blocks, you've already got the whole city to choose from. Apart from perhaps Glenelg, Norwood and the city centre, the overwhelming majority of the city is made up of freestanding homes (with the occasional smattering of old two storey units, like along ANZAC Highway) on broad streets. From Seaford, through Unley and Prospect, and up to Elizabeth. And what are we doing? We're building more - 30,000 more.
Meanwhile, the average number of people in an Australian household is falling, as family sizes shrink and there are an increasing number of couples without children and people remaining single. A hundred years ago it was 4.5 people per household, 50 years ago it was 3.5, now it's just over 2.5. But at the same time, the population is growing. Put those two together, and you have the number of households in Australia is growing at a faster rate than the population. Between 1996 and 2006, the total population grew by 13%, but the total number of households grew by 18%; if you compare with 1976, our population grew by 47%, but households grew by 83%.
And where are these smaller households living? Well, they live in practically the only housing option that is available to them: freestanding homes with a couple of bedrooms and a yard. The fact that they are all in the market for these houses just serves to drive their price up and push families into a bad situation. The people that could make the most use of these houses can't afford them, because they're being used by people who don't really need them and in many cases don't especially want them.
So it may sound paradoxical at first, but now you can see the logic behind it - if you want to make traditional housing more affordable, build more multistory apartments. Give the young singles, the professional couples, and the retirees alternative places to live, and you start freeing up the existing housing stock for families. Heck, there are families - like us - that are interested in living in something like that, freeing up another 700sqm block in the process.
But maybe people like me are just 'sookyfuckinlala's. Maybe, maybe, but I'll be interested to see who's whinging when petrol prices rise again.
