Sensational-Adelaide.com

Waewick wrote:That is what I'm trying to say

The Government should be encouraging inner city, medium denisty housing

the subsidies that apply to greenfields sites (both directly and inderectly) should be diverted in full to medium density housing.

I would rather see that, than a heap 250sqm homes on 300 sqm blocks in Roseworthy.

why? who benefits?

mutt wrote:

Waewick wrote:That is what I'm trying to say

The Government should be encouraging inner city, medium denisty housing

the subsidies that apply to greenfields sites (both directly and inderectly) should be diverted in full to medium density housing.

I would rather see that, than a heap 250sqm homes on 300 sqm blocks in Roseworthy.

why? who benefits?

who doesn't benefit?

edit- I'm tlaking about blocks of flats BTW, I'm talking buildings similar to that on Halifax street or even the one I live in - which is an attached building of 100m2 (so 2 x 100m2)

Will wrote:...And in Australia, like other 'new world' countries like the USA, Canada and NZ, most of our urban population do live in detached housing. Comparing us to the old world cities of Europe which were built prior to the arrival of the motor car is unrealistic...

There's the root of the problem of sprawl.

I have another example, that Will hopefully won't find so offensive.

Imagine the appropriate price signal was in place, say $100 a week worth of tolls to drive from Aldinga to the CBD daily. This is a relatively realistic figure given that it costs about that much in tolls to drive in from nowhereville in West Sydney.

Thats $5200 a year. Add another $4000 a year in car expenses and the $9000 a year could possibly be the difference between a clerical CBD-based job to one out in the sticks. Without the price signal in place, the person will probably take the city job, because he doesn't wear the cost of the congestion he causes, everyone else does.

Put the price signal in place, and he may take the job out in the sticks instead. You may also see job creation out in the sticks as well as companies seek to recruit the best talent for the cheapest price.

Waewick wrote:

mutt wrote:

Waewick wrote:That is what I'm trying to say

The Government should be encouraging inner city, medium denisty housing

the subsidies that apply to greenfields sites (both directly and inderectly) should be diverted in full to medium density housing.

I would rather see that, than a heap 250sqm homes on 300 sqm blocks in Roseworthy.

why? who benefits?

who doesn't benefit?

edit- I'm tlaking about blocks of flats BTW, I'm talking buildings similar to that on Halifax street or even the one I live in - which is an attached building of 100m2 (so 2 x 100m2)

that doesnt answer my question

Will wrote:

muzzamo wrote:
These people would argue that they need to drive, public transport sucks or is nonexistent, well once the proper price signals are in place, it would encourage people to think twice before living out there if it doesn't suit in the first place. we have then removed a car from the roads.

If people still want to continue this sort of lifestyle then they are still allowed to, nobody is stopping them but they need to pay $100 a week or so in tolls for the privilege.

People do not live out in the outer suburbs because they want to. They do it because that is the only place they can afford to live in. Your suggestion would be an additional burden on those doing it the toughest.

(And no, most people are not hipsters who think that a 35m2 apartment with no carpark is a serious place to live)

It's not victimisation. It's about people paying their share. The 'hipsters' you're so quick to beat up on (but heaven forbid anyone should question the sense of entitlement held by the suburban battler, right? ) effectively provide a subsidy to heavy road users.

If the market were working correctly someone occupying less land, using fewer resources and creating less of an environmental impact would enjoy an economic benefit.

why? who benefits?

Users of road and utility infrastructure. Public finances. The environment. The economy.

Not everyone thinks our lives should be dictated by the market

That's just something people who benefit from creating an externality say. It's a zero sum game - someone bears the economic burden, it just doesnt happen to be you. It's what someone says when they dont want to pay their fare share.

muzzamo wrote:I have another example, that Will hopefully won't find so offensive.

Imagine the appropriate price signal was in place, say $100 a week worth of tolls to drive from Aldinga to the CBD daily. This is a relatively realistic figure given that it costs about that much in tolls to drive in from nowhereville in West Sydney.

Thats $5200 a year. Add another $4000 a year in car expenses and the $9000 a year could possibly be the difference between a clerical CBD-based job to one out in the sticks. Without the price signal in place, the person will probably take the city job, because he doesn't wear the cost of the congestion he causes, everyone else does.

Put the price signal in place, and he may take the job out in the sticks instead. You may also see job creation out in the sticks as well as companies seek to recruit the best talent for the cheapest price.

I still find your example 'offensive' because you are ading an additional cost to people who can least afford it. That person probably lives in Aldinga, because they can't afford to live anywhere else. By adding a $100 week tax to them, you would also be reducing their ability for employment as there is nowhere near the same amount of available jobs in the 'sticks' compared to the CBD.

I think we both have the same aim of reducing sprawl, however I don't think punishing people for living in the outer suburbs is the answer, as the problems created by sprawl were not caused by those people you want to punish. Why not introduce incentives to live closer to the CBD instead? i.e. like what the government has done in eliminating stamp duty for CBD apartments

To all the people that are saying that life out in the outer suburbs is so much cheaper and easier why don't you all just pack up your shit and move out to Roseworthy or Aldinga then?

All I'm seeing here is two(ish) positions which are both half right, arguing that the other's position is all wrong based on the wrong bits but their own is all correct based on the correct bits.

Pop culture reference about Spock from Star Trek, something something...

monotonehell wrote:All I'm seeing here is two(ish) positions which are both half right, arguing that the other's position is all wrong based on the wrong bits but their own is all correct based on the correct bits.

Pop culture reference about Spock from Star Trek, something something...

And i just wanted to argue

I don't think it can be an immediate change - as there is some merit in poor people living in the far outer suburbs

There needs to be an cultural change within the government that what has been going on for 30 years was wrong.

quite simply, if we put it to the general public that the bulging lines of Adelaide are actually costing them - give it a figure, you will very quickly see people change their views.

people are persuaded by their hip pocket, let them know that a development in Aldinga is actually costing every south australian $x and we will see change

in conjunction with this, we make it easier for medium density with a focus of incentive of decent size townhouses (i.e 100m2 living areas for 2 beds)

Waewick wrote:I don't think it can be an immediate change - as there is some merit in poor people living in the far outer suburbs

There needs to be an cultural change within the government that what has been going on for 30 years was wrong.

quite simply, if we put it to the general public that the bulging lines of Adelaide are actually costing them - give it a figure, you will very quickly see people change their views.

people are persuaded by their hip pocket, let them know that a development in Aldinga is actually costing every south australian $x and we will see change

in conjunction with this, we make it easier for medium density with a focus of incentive of decent size townhouses (i.e 100m2 living areas for 2 beds)

so you're advocating the government use propaganda to make people think their lives will be less expensive to live if urban sprawl is curbed?
yes great idea, this will in turn drive up land prices, not just in the outer regions but everywhere in the metropolitan area, which means more stamp duty from higher house prices. again who benefits?

Stamp duty is a massive disincentive I agree, it would have top be reviewed.

I'm not suggesting a freeze on outer development land, I'm advocating that it should reflect the real price to the community. Pretty simple request really.

what are you talking about in term of benefiting?

I'm assuming you think the wider community had benefited from the current model?

Will wrote:

muzzamo wrote:
These people would argue that they need to drive, public transport sucks or is nonexistent, well once the proper price signals are in place, it would encourage people to think twice before living out there if it doesn't suit in the first place. we have then removed a car from the roads.

If people still want to continue this sort of lifestyle then they are still allowed to, nobody is stopping them but they need to pay $100 a week or so in tolls for the privilege.

People do not live out in the outer suburbs because they want to.

Many do. Of course it depends on the suburb - I doubt people live in Davoren Park because they want to, but plenty of people want to live in Aldinga.

They do it because that is the only place they can afford to live in. Your suggestion would be an additional burden on those doing it the toughest.

You're failing to take into account its effect on land prices. Supply and demand would make the land cheaper, so those doing it the tougghest would actually benefit unless they used the tolls.

(And no, most people are not hipsters who think that a 35m2 apartment with no carpark is a serious place to live)

I doubt parking would make it much more attractive.

There is a case for cross subsidization, but it's not the only option.

Aidan wrote:

Will wrote:

muzzamo wrote:
These people would argue that they need to drive, public transport sucks or is nonexistent, well once the proper price signals are in place, it would encourage people to think twice before living out there if it doesn't suit in the first place. we have then removed a car from the roads.

If people still want to continue this sort of lifestyle then they are still allowed to, nobody is stopping them but they need to pay $100 a week or so in tolls for the privilege.

People do not live out in the outer suburbs because they want to.

Many do. Of course it depends on the suburb - I doubt people live in Davoren Park because they want to, but plenty of people want to live in Aldinga.

Yep and it's not hard to see why. Beautiful landscape, beaches, close to wineries, not far from Victor Harbour and soon a faster connection to the city. While for places like Munno Para or Gawler, some people prefer living in the outer suburbs for many reasons. Some include close to family/friends or just simply not keen on living so close to the city. Sure many people do live in the outer burbs because of money but not all people.