Sensational-Adelaide.com

I didn't realise 'visionary' meant doing more of the same thing. Also no mention of upgrading trainlines or public transport, so reliance of cars to get around which equals more pollution. No mention of amenities or placemaking to these sites either.

Plus, if you look at these houses being built in these new sprawling developments, the backyards are very tiny and there is very little other amenity for proper community space or things to do for the youth.

Neko Neko Peko Peko wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 12, 2023 7:45 pm

Plus, if you look at these houses being built in these new sprawling developments, the backyards are very tiny and there is very little other amenity for proper community space or things to do for the youth.

Don't need community space or things to do for youth near by when you've got Mum & Dad taxi. They can drive them to TTP and park for free. /s

Dry Creek is Mawson Lakes 2.0. It's about 10km² compared to Mawson Lakes 6.5km², so 50% bigger.
There's been plans for Dry Creek for at least a decade, these plans had 15,000 homes, a lake with islands and boat access to Barker Inlet. The new plan has 5,000 less homes, so this will mean bigger blocks and more open space. The site has issues, but Mawson Lakes and West Lakes are both reclaimed swamp land, so it's possible to make it nice. Also Mawson Lakes is about 30% University and Technology Park so Dry Creek is going to have twice the residential land.

rev wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 12, 2023 6:35 pm

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 12, 2023 5:25 pm

In no universe is Mali's desire here a good one.

Tell us your alternative then.

Certainly not releasing huge tracts of land for urban sprawl.

Neko Neko Peko Peko wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 12, 2023 7:45 pm

I didn't realise 'visionary' meant doing more of the same thing. Also no mention of upgrading trainlines or public transport, so reliance of cars to get around which equals more pollution. No mention of amenities or placemaking to these sites either.

Plus, if you look at these houses being built in these new sprawling developments, the backyards are very tiny and there is very little other amenity for proper community space or things to do for the youth.

The Hackham site is ok, as a simple diversion of the 743, 744, 745 ans 747 should do job, and of course the T722 already runs along Main South Road.

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 12, 2023 8:18 pm

rev wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 12, 2023 6:35 pm

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 12, 2023 5:25 pm

In no universe is Mali's desire here a good one.

Tell us your alternative then.

Certainly not releasing huge tracts of land for urban sprawl.

Don't dance around it.
What would your alternative be to releasing land for housing within the urban/metro boundary of Adelaide?
Where would you house people? Taking into account demand for detached dwellings is greater then apartments and will probably never be the reverse.
What would you do to fix the housing shortage?
What would you do to ease the housing affordability crisis?
What would you do to fix the rental crisis?

You wouldn't release land, so what would you do?

Neko Neko Peko Peko wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 12, 2023 7:45 pm

I didn't realise 'visionary' meant doing more of the same thing. Also no mention of upgrading trainlines or public transport, so reliance of cars to get around which equals more pollution. No mention of amenities or placemaking to these sites either.

Plus, if you look at these houses being built in these new sprawling developments, the backyards are very tiny and there is very little other amenity for proper community space or things to do for the youth.

They've only announced the intention to build housing in those spots.
They haven't released detailed plans for those sites. Take it easy.

ChillyPhilly wrote:

rev wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 12, 2023 6:35 pm

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 12, 2023 5:25 pm

In no universe is Mali's desire here a good one.

Tell us your alternative then.

Certainly not releasing huge tracts of land for urban sprawl.

That is certainly not an answer.

Madness. Mali's vision is everyone having a kick around in the back yard? I think he'll be pretty disappointed when he sees what the developers have planned...

And that's if people get back from the 50+km drive home from work while there is still some daylight left.

Black roofs and Ford Rangers as far as the eye can see. And a free car park at Westfield.

I agree with the poster above that if Concordia is developed, the Gawler Central railway service should be extended to a new station where the Barossa Railway crossed the Barossa Valley Way. Maybe a new spur/alignment could then provide another station in Concordia.

But...

Stephen Mullighan said on the radio that Concordia was chosen because it's "close to the end of the Northern Expressway" - it's four suburbs away on the opposite side of Gawler! A new bridge was built over the South Para River a few years ago, but deliberately designed as a local road not an arterial road. Another new arterial road bridge would be needed over the North Para River to develop Concordia.

Concordia is in the Barossa Council - do its ratepayers want to be responsible for development to support a huge development there?

There is land south of Gawler that was "released" over ten years ago that is still growing crops! For example https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-06/ ... nd/3317666

Concordia is a good location as long as they put in the rail infrastructure.
They also need a line out to Roseworthy, but I don't see it happening.
They also need to make sure Concordia has a direct link to the Northern Expressway rather than going through Gawler.

While I wouldn't want to live out there, I realise it will be a good option for a lot of people, especially if they don't have to commute to the city for work.

I would build at Concordia before building on the old salt pans.

Both of these are 100% better than Riverlea. That is the most stupid location for a large scale development.

Not everyone works in the city.
I grew up in Morphett Vale and have lived in the area my whole life, living in Sheidow Park now.
Over my career, I've never worked (long term) North of Warradale. Never needed to commute to the city so living in the inner suburbs would just be unnecessary.
I have large dogs, so a little apartment would be unkind to them. I need a backyard for their happiness.

Infill living has its place in Adelaide. But it's not for everyone.
Urban sprawl has its place, but as mentioned, local services need to be upgraded to cater for it.

Sent from my SM-G996B using Tapatalk

neoballmon wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 13, 2023 10:04 pm

Not everyone works in the city.
I grew up in Morphett Vale and have lived in the area my whole life, living in Sheidow Park now.
Over my career, I've never worked (long term) North of Warradale. Never needed to commute to the city so living in the inner suburbs would just be unnecessary.
I have large dogs, so a little apartment would be unkind to them. I need a backyard for their happiness.

Infill living has its place in Adelaide. But it's not for everyone.
Urban sprawl has its place, but as mentioned, local services need to be upgraded to cater for it.

Sent from my SM-G996B using Tapatalk

Not working in the CBD is not popular in this forum. I live within sight of the Blakeview land that was released in 2011, and get hayfever when it's planted with canola (wheat or barley aren't as bad). My commute is about 20 minutes by car, 30-50 minutes by bike (downhill is quicker) and about an hour and a half by public transport.

My wife has worked in a few places, and says her 45 minute drive with two sets of traffic lights (46 if traffic is bad) is much nicer than spending longer to drive a shorter distance to Prospect.

I haven't worked in the CBD for the near 15 years.
I currently work in Port Adelaide, with three sets of traffic lights between my house and work.
I would gladly take the train, however I am not catching a train to Central then change for Port Adelaide and walk a fair distance from the PA station to the waterfront...
I also spend time at Osborne and Mawson Lakes.
Living in the Prospect area makes it central to any of these locations though, but car is king...

SRW wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 12, 2023 1:52 pm

All four sites are within the urban growth boundary and were eventually going to be released, so can't fight that. But I do worry that they seem to be releasing in bulk now what was supposed to be drip fed out over 30 years. This will probably now make it harder to densify in central locations if demand is diluted at such scale. Which means in 30 years time we'll have no easy way to grow, as we'll have underdeveloped today's brownfield and used up all greenfield.

Your point about the underdevelopment of brownfields sites is a good one. We have a very limited number of large inner metro brownfield sites. We should not be wasting that land by covering it in townhouses, as is the current policy.

I acknowledge townhouses have their place in transitional zones. But generally, townhouses represent the worst of both worlds. Compared to apartments, they are a very inefficient use of space, yet they don't have the compensating amenity advantages of detached houses with gardens.

Townhouse construction is already catered to adequately through subdivision in existing suburban areas. On large brownfields sites, developers should be encouraged to build mostly apartments, taking advantage of the absence of the issues of existing neighborhood character and NIMBY neighbors which plague apartment developments proposed for existing suburban areas.

The current policy of using strategic infill land to build mostly townhouses will quickly result in the depletion of opportunities for large-scale inner metro redevelopments.