U/C: [Cheltenham] St. Clair | $500m

[Pistol]

I pay $600 per quarter with none of these facilities (gym, spa, sauna etc.) but that includes gas and water rates. Anyway back to the topic...

[jimmy_2486]

I pay $600 per quarter with none of these facilities (gym, spa, sauna etc.) but that includes gas and water rates. Anyway back to the topic...

Well if you compare living in a high density area with excellent PT and $800 qr rates, with living in a low density area with crap PT forcing you to drive to work and back everyday. Your extra car expenses should make up for it wouldnt you say?

And you get a pool that you dont have to maintain, spa, sauna and gym!!! Also cafes at your doorstep, probably clubs/pubs nearby!! ahhh the life......

And if you work and live in the city, imagine the extra half hour you get to sleep in everyday!!

I have a mate that lives with his family on top of the old john martins building, and he just has to walk across the road to get to uni. I get soo jealous of him!!

I think a problem ive noticed with (mostly the elder genertion of) adelaide is that a lot of people here have such negative attitudes about apartments/small dwellings. We have been used to living in low density housing for so long, but its getting too expensive to keep creating these low density fringe suburbs. People who currently live in apartments are considered a minority group and are thought to be "out of their minds" for wanting to live in such small places. Where as in fact in reality we (the majority of adelaidians) who choose to live with big backyards ARE the minority on a comparable scale with most cities.

I think people who want to live on a 900+sqm block and can only really live in a fringe suburb are trying to hold onto the older generation of adeliaide living. I mean there are people who live there cos they work near there and thats fair enough. But some move there and think that cos they got a 4 bedroom house for the same price as a 2 bedroom unit near the city, they are getting a much better property. Those people also think that you must be out of your mind to spend money near the city cos you can get something much bigger for much cheaper on the fringe. This is a very unlogical statement because you are paying extra for the convinience. A 300 gran property in craigmore say is no better (or worse) in any way than a 300 gran property in say thebarton. The craigmore property will be alot bigger which is its advantage, and the thebarton property will have shops, clubs, PT, etc very close by which is its advantage.

The moral of the story here is that even though everyone wants their big house with a big backyard, there is still nothing wrong in living in a small dwelling with no backyard. The good news is a lot of our newer generation are thinking this way.....hopefully!

[Cruise]

I think people who want to live on a 900+sqm block and can only really live in a fringe suburb are trying to hold onto the older generation of adeliaide living. I mean there are people who live there cos they work near there and thats fair enough. But some move there and think that cos they got a 4 bedroom house for the same price as a 2 bedroom unit near the city, they are getting a much better property. Those people also think that you must be out of your mind to spend money near the city cos you can get something much bigger for much cheaper on the fringe. This is a very unlogical statement because you are paying extra for the convinience. A 300 gran property in craigmore say is no better (or worse) in any way than a 300 gran property in say thebarton. The craigmore property will be alot bigger which is its advantage, and the thebarton property will have shops, clubs, PT, etc very close by which is its advantage.

The moral of the story here is that even though everyone wants their big house with a big backyard, there is still nothing wrong in living in a small dwelling with no backyard. The good news is a lot of our newer generation are thinking this way.....hopefully!

Remember one mans trash is another mans treasure, and for the record ill keep my backyard thankyou.
oh and im not looking for an arguement, I think we just disagree on what we believe is "quailty of life" so to speak.

[jimmy_2486]

Remember one mans trash is another mans treasure, and for the record ill keep my backyard thankyou.
oh and im not looking for an argument, I think we just disagree on what we believe is "quailty of life" so to speak.

Well thats right cruise control, it is a personal choice. I wasn't saying for everyone to pack their bags and move into apartments. If you can afford a backyard then your on a good thing there, its every Australians dream to own their own "castle". Houses are getting smaller and smaller every year and for those who work in the city, and wanting to live close to their work, seem to have the fear that when they have to move out, they have no choice but to be forced onto the fringe burbs and will have to travel for over an hour to get to work and back. I was just raising my concern for those people. If your happy to drive a lot, then your laughing!

We just need to keep an open mind about the issue, there are pros and cons about living in low and high density properties. People in highly populated cities have learnt to accept living in high density properties, and don't mind it at all. I think we have too much pride here.

What annoys me is peoples negative attitudes towards high density housing and the pressure for no high density housing within 10km of the city. What is causing it? Why do we whinge about it?? i don't understand why??

[Cruise]

dont get me wrong, I have no negative thoughts toward High density devolpment. But i do believe in supply and demand. If people want units, build them and this is what were seeing is people (like yourself) are willing to live in small dwellings so they can be within pissing distance to the CBD, so they should build them.

I too hate people that have the mentality "If someone likes something different to me then they should be cast hell!!!"
I mean its not the 1920's any more.

[jimmy_2486]

dont get me wrong, I have no negative thoughts toward High density devolpment. But i do believe in supply and demand. If people want units, build them and this is what were seeing is people (like yourself) are willing to live in small dwellings so they can be within pissing distance to the CBD, so they should build them.

I too hate people that have the mentality "If someone likes something different to me then they should be cast hell!!!"
I mean its not the 1920's any more.

Spot on cruise control...

I believe for a city of 1.2 million people, we are fairly spread out.

If the city councils pushed for higher density living in the inner metros, then our fringe low density suburbs wouldn't have to be as far away....but nooooooo all the old codgers in unley, norwood and propect etc want their big backyards as well cos the councils attract these people to our "green natural city".

The end result, we have expanded a bit too much, and we have all these fringe areas with sub standard PT and they have to miss out. If we had 4.5 mill like sydney then it be a different story.

If high density living was encouraged and supported by the community and the councils in the inner metros, our low density areas would be a lot closer to the city, and they would be easier to maintain, public transport would kick ass there etc.

But as you said, its all supply and demand. I just see all of adelaides PT problems and our small budget, compared with our massive land space we have and it doesn't make sense!!

If I had a massive block in norwood, id be cutting it up and developing it pronto to cash in!!

[Cruise]

I believe for a city of 1.2 million people, we are fairly spread out.

If the city councils pushed for higher density living in the inner metros, then our fringe low density suburbs wouldn't have to be as far away....but nooooooo all the old codgers in unley, norwood and propect etc want their big backyards as well cos the councils attract these people to our "green natural city".

The end result, we have expanded a bit too much, and we have all these fringe areas with sub standard PT and they have to miss out. If we had 4.5 mill like sydney then it be a different story.

If high density living was encouraged and supported by the community and the councils in the inner metros, our low density areas would be a lot closer to the city, and they would be easier to maintain, public transport would kick ass there etc.

But as you said, its all supply and demand. I just see all of adelaides PT problems and our small budget, compared with our massive land space we have and it doesn't make sense!!

Rememeber Adelaide's land area is in similar size to that of london... and look at the population difference!!!

If I had a massive block in norwood, id be cutting it up and developing it pronto to cash in!!

yeah me too James (Im guessing thats your name), some people have no idea how to make easy money...

[bmw boy]

If I had a massive block in norwood, id be cutting it up and developing it pronto to cash in!!

yeah me too James (Im guessing thats your name), some people have no idea how to make easy money...[/quote]

that's abit unfair cruise control

we can't exactly have everyone in Norwood with a big block dividing & developing thier properities.

Some people may like the way they're living.... and as they are in Norwood they probably wouldnt exactly need the money anyway.
Also, housing prices go up in time especially in such exclusive suburbs, so theyre not exactly losing money....

[urban]

Most of the places being built on the fringes now have no useable outdoor space and have dark cramped rooms but waste 400m2 of land to achieve it. They could have the same or more amenity in a 60's inner city unit and they would have a better quality of construction thrown in for free.

A mixture of high, medium & low density housing is desirable. Low density housing which provides no additional useable outdoor space or gardens than high density housing is undesirable.

I am happy for the suburbs surrounding cheltenham to remain low-density as long as the large development sites are developed as mixed use and designed to provide efficient public transport, access to shops. Open space should be integrated into the development, useable for sport and passive recreation. The current designs push all the landscaped space to the boundaries of the site effectively disconnecting the new development from the surrounding suburbs. The arterial roads should be used for commercial activity.

A medium to high density development of this site could provide enough people to warrant a tram line down Torrens Rd and a new train station on the existing line.

[Cruise]

Urban, Why do you think we need a tram line down torrens road? there is a rail line that runs behind the cheltenham racecourse site and there is even a train station there named 'Racecourse'.
As romantic as trams might sound I think Heavy rail should be used where possible.
And yes blocks on the fringe are small i struggled to find a block 380sqm! There getting smaller due to demand going up and and devlopers cashing in by squeezing as many house on a acre as possible.

[urban]

Cruise Control, industry is deserting the area opening up large tracts of land perfect for medium to high density mixed use infill. There is a potential for 20-30,000 more people in the vicinity which would more than adequately support both tram & train services. The tram would replace existing bus services down Torrens Rd freeing up buses for routes that could not feasibly be serviced by trams ie hills & end of line train station feeders. The tram & train stations would be almost 1km apart & would service people on the other side of the routes.

Rebuilding the existing train station or constructing a new one would both be good.

[AtD]

It's shown in the proposals posted earlier that the railway station is getting upgraded. There really is no point for a tram line. That's a bit pie in the sky, and there's more pressing transport needs at the moment.

[Cruise]

Urban, I think we need to upgrade the heavy rail network (even if its just an expansion of the diesel network) first before extending the tram further. Personally I dont catch Public Transport, for the simple reason i finish work at 12:10 at night and all PT has ceased around port adelaide though im within walking distance to the train line. start running trains more often and ill begin catching them and leave my car at home.

[urban]

Remember this will be a 10-20 year process. I agree upgrading the train network should be the govt's 1st transport priority.

To have an effective public transport system you need medium to high density development around public transport nodes. Density can then decrease as you get further away from the transport. At the moment in Adelaide the rail network is surrounded by low density housing.

The inclusion of the tram line in the project was to highlight that the development should be concentrated at the fringes of the site where there is close connection to public transport (existing or potential) with the open space in the middle.

Unfortunately my whole hopes for the project are pie in the sky because those fearful of medium density living will exert enough pressure on govt & council to ensure this once in a lifetime opportunity for the city is wasted by filling the site with low density housing disconnected from public transport.

[rhino]

Good post Urban, I agree with your comments. I hope someone in the right position is keeping an eye on this forum (I believe they do actually keep track of what's being said in forums - whether they choose to act on it or not is another matter).