Sensational-Adelaide.com

rev wrote:My point? Why complain about it?
You aren't being forcibly relocated to a new development in the north...or are you?

Every time there's a new housing development, someone yells omg sprawl yuck. It's like another nimby syndrome.

And it's hardly suburban hell. Two Wells barely has 700 residents. The development will double it.

We all want Adelaide to grow, for the population to increase...where do you guys think these extra people are going to live? In shoe boxes in the city?
Adelaide's suburbs aren't going to suddenly turn into medium density.
It's going to take decades for a change like that to happen in an ultra conservative place like Adelaide.

Or should we put up a sign at Adelaide Airport and border crossing roads, saying "Sorry, we are closed to new arrivals until 2050"

Eventually Adelaide's boundary will stretch to Two Wells, and it will just be another suburb. But by the time that happens most of us will be in nursing homes or pretty close.
Our geography leaves us with little option but to expand to the north.
It's inevitable.

rev wrote:And it's hardly suburban hell.

rev wrote:Two Wells barely has 700 residents. The development will double it.

rev wrote:an ultra conservative place like Adelaide.

I think you missed Messia's point. He's not against the existence of suburbia, he's against this form of development.

rev wrote:So what's the solution?

Majority of people don't want to live in apartments in the suburbs. They still want a decent(by todays standards) sized block with their own home on it.
The size of block has become smaller, so there's a few more people living within the redeveloped housing projects or infill stuff(like Westwood, Mawson Lakes and St Clair).

I think you missed Messia's point. He's not against the existence of suburbia, he's against this form of development.

This sort of development will always happen though.
If we experience a population boom, it will happen even more so. Perhaps it might even start happening in regional towns as well.

rev wrote:This sort of development will always happen though.

rev wrote:Majority of people don't want to live in apartments in the suburbs. They still want a decent(by todays standards) sized block with their own home on it.

rev wrote:So what's the solution?

MessiahAndrw wrote:If you try to sell a townhouse without a town, you're just selling a very narrow house.

Planning Minister John Rau warns ongoing urban sprawl will create ‘fringe ghettos’ as massive Roseworthy expansion is rejected

DANIEL WILLS STATE POLITICAL EDITOR THE ADVERTISER FEBRUARY 10, 2014

PLANNING Minister John Rau has warned ongoing urban sprawl will create “fringe ghettos” demanding huge taxpayer subsidy, after rejecting calls for a massive expansion of Roseworthy.

The Advertiser today revealed Mr Rau had approved further study on a plan to grow the northern township of Roseworthy by about 6000 people over about a decade.

A final rezoning decision is unlikely to be made before next year.

The township is 50km from the CBD, just north of Gawler.

The State Government’s 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide allows capacity for a 100,000-person expansion by 2040.

Mr Rau said there was no current need for such a “mega-complex”.

Opposition Leader Steven Marshall has reportedly promised to make Roseworthy a “top priority” and to do “everything we can to remove red tape to make sure that this project goes ahead”.

Mr Rau said the full-scale expansion of Roseworthy “dwarfs any other proposal that has been floating around in this state for decades”.

He said it was two and a half times the size of the Buckland Park development, which the Government was heavily criticised for approving.

Mr Rau today released new studies he said showed the cost of living on the fringe was higher for homeowners and created huge additional infrastructure costs for all taxpayers.

“The opportunity really is here for us to completely reframe the policy debate,” he said.

“The Liberal Party has made it clear that they have a 19th Century view of how the city should grow, that it should grow through endless urban sprawl.

“The proof of that pudding is in their announcement ... they would support a massive 40,000 home development in the region of Roseworthy.

“That is urban sprawl writ large.”

He said under the Government, Adelaide would “continue to grow, but it won’t grow in the sense of its footprint expanding endlessly to the north and the south”.

Mr Rau said further fringe development risked “creating basically fringe ghettos”.

“(Having) 100,000 people (at Roseworthy), it would have to be so heavily subsidised by the taxpayer to make it viable, it wouldn’t be funny,” he said.

Opposition development spokesman Vickie Chapman said the Government had wasted the time and money of the housing sector by delaying a decision on Roseworthy.

Asked what decision she would make on Roseworthy, Ms Chapman said: “It’s got to be assessed”.

“If they don’t do anything with it or they do a half-baked thing with it, then obviously we would review it on coming into government but, generally where they have approved things, we don’t go behind that because the investors have already started,” she said.

“It can create a double problem by simply saying ‘we would reverse the decision’,” she said.

Property Council of Australia SA executive director Richard Angrove said a planning focus on inner and middle Adelaide would promote vibrancy across the state.

“Adelaide City is the central hub of activity for South Australia,” he said. “South Australia’s low levels of population growth have meant expansion further north and south is largely unnecessary.

“With the surge in interest for infill and urban renewal-style development the Government is right to focus planning on our inner city and surrounds.”

Family First Senator-elect and HomesteadHomes managing director Bob Day said few people who bought houses on the urban fringe worked in the CBD.

He challenged figures in the Government studies showing it was more expensive to live in outer suburbs.

“It is infinitely cheaper to build brand new infrastructure on the fringe than try to retrofit and upgrade existing infrastructure in the inner suburbs,” he said.

Mr Day insisted urban sprawl was also better for the environment than infill.

Independent Upper House MP John Darley said he planned to introduce new legislation to ensure “secret land deals will come to an end”.

He said the move was sparked by controversy over the Gillman land deal, in which the Government offloaded the land to Adelaide Capital Partners without a tender.

“Without having a clear process, the public will remain suspicious as to whether the Government is doing the right thing or if deals are being done under the table.” he said.

“As a former chief executive of the Lands Department which was responsible for the disposal of all surplus government land, I am astounded that this sale was finalised without going to tender, public auction or even holding an expression of interest.

“This is about taxpayers getting the best value for money for their assets.”

ChillyPhilly wrote: Any development on the site of the salt pans would have significant negative impacts socially, economically and environmentally - it's just a bad idea.

It will do nothing to reduce car dependence (in fact will increase it)

will be quintessentially disconnected from nearby existing urban areas and centres by being cut off in all directions by roads and railways; will not promote active and healthy living and modes of transport, in particular cycling and walking between from destinations; will have a net overall impact detrimental to nearby environment catchments and ecosystems (in particular the mangroves); will not carry much if any place value and will likely contribute to an existing oversupply of new housing.

The oversupply is not 'publicised': DPTI have said that many new dwellings in newer subdivisions are bought by interstate buyers who in turn rent the properties out. There's more reasons against building on the salt pans that I can think of, but the reasons here are enough for now. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.

crawf wrote:It would also be good if the visually intrusive Torrens Island power station could be demolished and relocated far away from Adelaide

crawf wrote:as well as Bolivar treatment plant which would free up more land for development.

metro wrote:

crawf wrote:It would also be good if the visually intrusive Torrens Island power station could be demolished and relocated far away from Adelaide

I would rather see Torrens Island Power Station given heritage listing and preserved to educate people decades/centuries in the future on how the people in our time generated electricity. It was bad enough seeing the demolition of the Stanvac Oil Refinery, a huge 20th century industrial landmark of the Southern suburbs and a significant part of our state's history and a symbol of our dependence on oil.. now gone forever, to lose Torrens Island as well would be a disaster.

metro wrote: Certainly not the most attractive thing, and I sure wouldn't want to live next door to it, but it is kind of essential. Besides, there is a water treatment plant in Glenelg right next to million dollar beachfront property.