Sensational-Adelaide.com

I've noticed on Nearmap that the route that was reserved for an extension of Walkleys Road from Montague Road (Ingle Farm) round to Bridge Road (Pooraka) has now had houses built on it at the Bridge Road end.

Perhaps I shouldn't've been surprised - the alignment of Elder Smith Road with Maxwell Road effectively destroyed the chance of linking up with that, so there really wasn't much point in this extension. But the development occurred at the NW end, which is marked on the street map as reserve, rather than the southern end, which isn't.

I'm convinced that we once had a street directory from the........'70s (?) here at home that showed a planned road along that route. Good to see a swift decision on the matter.

Remember when Schudolz Road used to be Florey Highway? Why did it have it's name changed?

The Scooter Guy wrote:Remember when Schudolz Road used to be Florey Highway? Why did it have it's name changed?

No, I don't remember that at all. When was it called Florey Highway?

Aidan wrote:

The Scooter Guy wrote:Remember when Schudolz Road used to be Florey Highway? Why did it have it's name changed?

No, I don't remember that at all. When was it called Florey Highway?

Back in the 1980s if you had an older street directory (e.g. UBD 21st edition 1983)

A friend of mine was at the Mawson Lakes Sales & Information Centre (Delfin) the other day looking at buying land and the sales rep mentioned to him that they are still in negotiations to make this Delfin's next big address after Blakes Crossing.

Delfin are in pole position to make this a massive development on one of the last large parcels of undeveloped land in the inner metro area. Therefore, i think the question is more 'when' not 'if'.

$4b new suburb plan for north

A $4 BILLION housing development - including schools, a train station and shopping hub - is proposed for agricultural land off Port Wakefield Rd.

The new 357ha suburb, to be called Waterview, would be created around a network of man-made waterways on land bordered by Port Wakefield, Heaslip and Waterloo Corner roads and the new Northern Expressway.

Preliminary designs for the estate, released exclusively to the News Review Messenger, include 2800 homes, echoing the likes of Mawson Lakes. The Waterview concept has been developed by Colin Martin, of Salisbury’s John Martin Real Estate. Mr Martin said construction could begin “within 12 months”, subject to planning approval. He said the site was owned by 132 individual land owners, who were looking to sell the land and concept to a housing developer.

So this isn't really a proposal yet, it's a concept for a proposal - the real story is that there's 132 land-owners sensing a windfall and fishing for a buyer.

Now this is a test for the state's planning - on the one hand, the location between the RAAF base, Waterloo Corner, and Penfield Gardens is actually connected to the city, you could imagine a train line going into it, it's close to places where people would work and the services of Salisbury etc, so it's a far cry from Buckland Park. On the other hand, this is actually farmland right now, and 357 hectares is a pretty big chunk to lose. Although glancing at the 30-year plan, it looks like this area was identified as "new strategic employment lands", so it's possible that our plans already involve the farms going.

So I'm torn. The location does have a lot to recommend it, but is it worth losing more agriculture for it? I think I could be swayed if we saw a serious plan that had the density higher (2800 in 357 hectares is only a little above average for Adelaide) with the train line running right into the middle of it - like an honest-to-goodness TOD. If we're going to lose the farms, let's at least make the game worth the candle.

agree with everything you said especailly the farm land, but I guess if its going to go anyway we are better to do it properly.

if they can they should try for a slightly higher density especially around the train station. I read on the messenger sight that a heavy rail line was planned in the area, is that true?

Train station? I hope they thought to tell the state government about this new train line they'll be building, servicing and paying for.

I'll remember that trick when I sell my house. It might have a train station near it... and a Disneyland... and a pub where all the beer is free. No plans exist but it could happen!

AtD wrote:Train station? I hope they thought to tell the state government about this new train line they'll be building, servicing and paying for.

I'll remember that trick when I sell my house. It might have a train station near it... and a Disneyland... and a pub where all the beer is free. No plans exist but it could happen!

In retrospect, I should have titled the thread "Vision", since that's all that we're talking about here. My read is that we've got a bunch of landowners that were already having to sell up when the land was rezoned for industry, but they've looked at the prices paid for housing developments vs industrial estates and understandably want a piece of that action instead. So they've got together concept plan and they're looking to get some traction to have the area rezoned again.

Maybe they thought that now was a good time to float the idea, with the stink around the Mt Barker expansion and with the strategic plan going through a review there may be support for housing right on the edge of the city. But they made a tactical error in their press release and called the area "agricultural land", which is setting alarm bells ringing - had they called it a "proposed industrial site", they may have slipped under people's radar.

I'm sick of this building out sprawl onto our good farming land. I'd like to see a mostly high density suburb surrounding a possible waterloo corner railway station, and by high density i mean 10-30 floor towers, not this 2-4 floor ugly tilt-up-concrete crap Mawson Lakes is building.

The alarm bells rang in my head over the agriculture land and the "network of man-made waterways".

Why do all cities build on arable land?

monotonehell wrote:The alarm bells rang in my head over the agriculture land and the "network of man-made waterways".

Why do all cities build on arable land?

When most of the world's famous cities were founded, geography was destiny. There was no refrigeration and only limited transportation, so each city had to provide most of it's own food, so people were looking for locations that had potential for agriculture. Now the cities have grown over that farmland, and we're relying more and more on soils that weren't as suitable for farming to begin with.

I wonder if this will actually be approved by the State Government, as the 30 Year Plan actually sets this land aside for employment lands. Also, in terms of transport, there is no indication of any sort of train line proposals heading up that way.

Prince George wrote:

monotonehell wrote:The alarm bells rang in my head over the agriculture land and the "network of man-made waterways".

Why do all cities build on arable land?

When most of the world's famous cities were founded, geography was destiny. There was no refrigeration and only limited transportation, so each city had to provide most of it's own food, so people were looking for locations that had potential for agriculture. Now the cities have grown over that farmland, and we're relying more and more on soils that weren't as suitable for farming to begin with.

That's how, not why.