Page 4 of 32

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:28 pm
by AtD
P.K. wrote:Neither, I wrote in and genuinely asked why people are so against this project especially when they have no intension of living out that way and the devellopment will not effect them in the slightest, then to knock the whole northern suburbs! been to Hackem lately? and I don't appreciate being called a wanker by some knobhead who lives in the eastern suburbs who thinks Adelaide finishes at Gepps Cross.

I was just stating facts when clearly some things other people were saying were not quite right. One that cracks me up is how far away everyone thinks this place is, is it a distance thing or a time thing? Funny it takes just as long to get the 30km from Virginia to Gepps Cross as it does from Gepps Cross to the city. Put another spin on that, people who live in Virginia and work at Gepps Cross will do less damage to the environment with car pollution for example, than people living in Gepps Cross and working in the city, who's the bad ones now.

Like I said before, if they can flood proof the area (to a degree), then I think its a good idea. Thats my opinion.

Why am I interested? I live out there.
It's not an issue of distance, it's an issue of density. Every essential service becomes increasingly uneconomical as population density decreases. And I mean everything, such as sewage, power, telecoms, police, schools, medical services, public transport, roads, and so on. While it might not seem like much extra for the individual to drive 5km further to work each day, you've got to remember that all the goods and services consumed by the entire community into perpetuity needs to be moved that distance extra. All the infrastructure carrying said goods and services needs to be extended that distance extra. People don't realise how much all this extra distance cost, usually because they don't pay for it themselves - the costs are distributed amongst society . And because the area has fewer people thanks to lower density, the benefit of all this extra public expenditure is concentrated amongst fewer people than it potentially could be.

(A good example: Telstra doesn't want to service rural communities because they'd have to pass the costs onto metropolitan customers. Their competitors don't have such obligations and thus can easily under-cut Telstra's prices and take away market share. The disappearance of bank branches is another example)

Why do we care? Say a mass people suddenly move into medium and high density dwellings in the inner city. The local school needs to whack on an extra wing, the local medical centre needs to lease some more space and extra doctors and teachers need to be employed. These costs are passed onto consumers and taxpayers for the maintenance of the status quo. The concentrated demand means public transport services can made more frequent while still remaining cost effective, which in turn increases the attractiveness of public transport. Conversely, car usage is made less attractive due to the extra traffic. This is desirable as public transport uses less resources, is better for the environment and promotes social equality.

Compare this to an equal mass of people moving into low density dwellings beyond the current urban boundaries. An entirely new medical centre and school needs to be built, because the nearest one is too far away to be effective. Now instead of just being able to hire doctors and teachers, additional administrative staff need to be employed. Public transport becomes less economical because people live too far away from 'nodes' such as stations or interchanges where frequent services exist, and too far apart for providing services to economical. Car dependency is a result, with all the environmental and socio-economic effects that are caused, and extra roads need to be built. To maintain the status quo for the rest of the community, the costs passed onto taxpayers and consumers are greater than that in the first scenario, even though the increase the population is the same.

Of course, in reality, the status quo of services isn't always maintained for the new residents at the expensive of the old. It's well documented that public services deteriorate the further from a major centre the population is. Social inequality is the result, because those who need the essential services are usually those attracted to the low land values of the outer suburbs where services don't exist. This is why we're seeing a shift away from public housing in the outer suburbs in preference for inner areas, placing those who need help near the help they need.

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:47 pm
by jimmy_2486
Cruise Control wrote:Im planning on moving to buckland park when this project starts.

Try and stop me
Go for it, ill give u a call to come past to check it out one day.....

How much does an STD phone call cost again, I forgot??.....

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:05 pm
by Bulldozer
P.K. wrote:Neither, I wrote in and genuinely asked why people are so against this project especially when they have no intension of living out that way and the devellopment will not effect them in the slightest, then to knock the whole northern suburbs! been to Hackem lately? and I don't appreciate being called a wanker by some knobhead who lives in the eastern suburbs who thinks Adelaide finishes at Gepps Cross.
I grew up down south and yes Hackham is a shithole just like all the other Housing Trust suburbs around it, however I wouldn't say that the south is just as bad as the north. So I'm not a wanker knobhead from the eastern suburbs, but I do agree that some posters on this forum do have an immature, cold and callous outlook on people that live in the areas that are lower on the socio-economic ladder.

However, you have received polite and well-reasoned replies pointing our the flaws in your posts and you replied with insults. Does it surprise you that I question your motives?

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:19 pm
by Bulldozer
jimmy_2486 wrote:How much does an STD phone call cost again, I forgot??.....
People still pay for long-distance calls? Thanks to leading SA business Internode, I pay 18c to call any landline in Australia and nothing to call my family! :)

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:21 pm
by jimmy_2486
im guessing ur on voip bulldozer??

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:57 pm
by Howie
Bulldozer wrote:
jimmy_2486 wrote:How much does an STD phone call cost again, I forgot??.....
People still pay for long-distance calls? Thanks to leading SA business Internode, I pay 18c to call any landline in Australia and nothing to call my family! :)

You mean you pay for calls to landlines anywhere in the world? Voipstunt.... we've been using it for about a year or so to call Australia/Malaysia/USA/UK for free.

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:19 pm
by Bulldozer
Howie wrote:You mean you pay for calls to landlines anywhere in the world? Voipstunt.... we've been using it for about a year or so to call Australia/Malaysia/USA/UK for free.
Interesting, but I a) don't use Windows and b) use a normal phone hooked up to my router's ATA :) Sounds like a very sweet deal though if it suits your needs. (To be honest I think it sounds too good to be true.)

Now if you'll excuse me I have to go get my hung-over butt to a polling booth to vote for a replacement for Peter Beattie. I'll let this thread get back on topic now. :)

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:49 pm
by Cruise
Bulldozer wrote: however I wouldn't say that the south is just as bad as the north.

and you know that how?

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:31 pm
by Wilfy 2007
AtD wrote:
P.K. wrote:Neither, I wrote in and genuinely asked why people are so against this project especially when they have no intension of living out that way and the devellopment will not effect them in the slightest, then to knock the whole northern suburbs! been to Hackem lately? and I don't appreciate being called a wanker by some knobhead who lives in the eastern suburbs who thinks Adelaide finishes at Gepps Cross.

I was just stating facts when clearly some things other people were saying were not quite right. One that cracks me up is how far away everyone thinks this place is, is it a distance thing or a time thing? Funny it takes just as long to get the 30km from Virginia to Gepps Cross as it does from Gepps Cross to the city. Put another spin on that, people who live in Virginia and work at Gepps Cross will do less damage to the environment with car pollution for example, than people living in Gepps Cross and working in the city, who's the bad ones now.

Like I said before, if they can flood proof the area (to a degree), then I think its a good idea. Thats my opinion.

Why am I interested? I live out there.
It's not an issue of distance, it's an issue of density. Every essential service becomes increasingly uneconomical as population density decreases. And I mean everything, such as sewage, power, telecoms, police, schools, medical services, public transport, roads, and so on. While it might not seem like much extra for the individual to drive 5km further to work each day, you've got to remember that all the goods and services consumed by the entire community into perpetuity needs to be moved that distance extra. All the infrastructure carrying said goods and services needs to be extended that distance extra. People don't realise how much all this extra distance cost, usually because they don't pay for it themselves - the costs are distributed amongst society . And because the area has fewer people thanks to lower density, the benefit of all this extra public expenditure is concentrated amongst fewer people than it potentially could be.

(A good example: Telstra doesn't want to service rural communities because they'd have to pass the costs onto metropolitan customers. Their competitors don't have such obligations and thus can easily under-cut Telstra's prices and take away market share. The disappearance of bank branches is another example)

Why do we care? Say a mass people suddenly move into medium and high density dwellings in the inner city. The local school needs to whack on an extra wing, the local medical centre needs to lease some more space and extra doctors and teachers need to be employed. These costs are passed onto consumers and taxpayers for the maintenance of the status quo. The concentrated demand means public transport services can made more frequent while still remaining cost effective, which in turn increases the attractiveness of public transport. Conversely, car usage is made less attractive due to the extra traffic. This is desirable as public transport uses less resources, is better for the environment and promotes social equality.

Compare this to an equal mass of people moving into low density dwellings beyond the current urban boundaries. An entirely new medical centre and school needs to be built, because the nearest one is too far away to be effective. Now instead of just being able to hire doctors and teachers, additional administrative staff need to be employed. Public transport becomes less economical because people live too far away from 'nodes' such as stations or interchanges where frequent services exist, and too far apart for providing services to economical. Car dependency is a result, with all the environmental and socio-economic effects that are caused, and extra roads need to be built. To maintain the status quo for the rest of the community, the costs passed onto taxpayers and consumers are greater than that in the first scenario, even though the increase the population is the same.

Of course, in reality, the status quo of services isn't always maintained for the new residents at the expensive of the old. It's well documented that public services deteriorate the further from a major centre the population is. Social inequality is the result, because those who need the essential services are usually those attracted to the low land values of the outer suburbs where services don't exist. This is why we're seeing a shift away from public housing in the outer suburbs in preference for inner areas, placing those who need help near the help they need.
Atd, P.K.

My interest is in Railcar Passenger Services, can there be a service put in to the Buckland Park Development?

Or would you just build a Brand new Station like Mawson Lakes at Virginia.

Regards,

Brian Leedham.

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:37 pm
by Wilfy 2007
Gidday,
Does anybody know if the buckland Park development is going ahead or has even been started yet.

Anybody got any info at all.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:17 am
by stanley
More land sought for new development

Posted Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:40pm AEST

he developers of a proposed new town on Adelaide's northern outskirts want to increase its size to 1,300 hectares.

The Walker Corporation has applied to expand the Buckland Park development by 300 hectares to allow better water management.

It wants to turn the site between Virginia and Port Gawler into a new township with amenities and housing for 15,000 people.

An environmental impact statement on the development is yet to be completed.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008 ... 308206.htm

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 9:23 am
by AtD
With petrol prices the way they are, who will want to live out in the middle of nowhere like that?

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:39 am
by Cruise
AtD wrote:With petrol prices the way they are, who will want to live out in the middle of nowhere like that?
Its a self contained township, not everyone commutes to the cbd everyday, Unlike what many wannabe transport planners say.

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:49 am
by Will
Cruise wrote:
AtD wrote:With petrol prices the way they are, who will want to live out in the middle of nowhere like that?
Its a self contained township, not everyone commutes to the cbd everyday, Unlike what many wannabe transport planners say.
Self contained township? Buckland Park is a blatant attempt by the state government to create urban sprawl outside our urban boundaries. The majority of people living in Buckland Park will commute to the CBD.

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 11:16 am
by Cruise
Will wrote:
Cruise wrote:
AtD wrote:With petrol prices the way they are, who will want to live out in the middle of nowhere like that?
Its a self contained township, not everyone commutes to the cbd everyday, Unlike what many wannabe transport planners say.
Self contained township? Buckland Park is a blatant attempt by the state government to create urban sprawl outside our urban boundaries. The majority of people living in Buckland Park will commute to the CBD.
Don't you get my point? Not everyone works in the Fucking CBD!