Sensational-Adelaide.com

If there was a hypothetical situation where, starting from today, I was an advisor to all of the local governments in metropolitan Adelaide. This is what I would do to craft the city into my utopian dream.

• Eliminate zoning for the majority of the city. Zoning artificially limits the growth of a city. Homes, places of work, shops, etc are forced to be spread out because they exist in different areas, which increases your daily commute distance and dependence on transportation. Without zoning, an area's use can evolve naturally as the city grows. You may get a chain of corner shops pop-up and shophouses may appear in some suburbs alongside traditional town houses. The free-market can decide on the best use for any particular piece of land, and areas can progress without the massive complications of applying to council to rezone an area, or large sections of industrial land being left unused when it could be used for housing. Basic economics would also make it infeasible for a huge factory or mall to pop up next door to you too (they would have to purchase 100+ houses, if all 100 families were willing to sell - and for the remaining families there will always be a means to protest to your local council), so most residential neighbourhoods will still remain residential neighbours, but it still allows the creative uses of land to pop up (such as mixed development communities). There will still be some minor zoning, for example, to map out and protect parks or to encourage retailers to build along pedestrian malls, but it will not be the norm for the majority of the land.
• Encourage in-fill development. Remove the illusion that living further out in cheaper. Charge utilities and services (water, electricity, gas, sewage garbage collection, telephone/Internet, public transport, taxes for mail delivery and road maintenance) at the actual cost of delivering and maintaining that service or utility to that premises. Naturally, high-density areas will be cheaper to service (more residents using the service in a single area - less distance per resident of pipes to maintain or for garbage trucks to drive). This will encourage new developments and home buyers to target free pockets of space in high density areas to fill in before developing in low density areas. However, nothing stops people who want to live in low density outer suburbs, but this will not be the norm because it won't be cheaper.
• Greater investment in public transport - especially rail forms. Rail forms (such as trains and light rail/trams) are more reliable and efficient than buses. They run independently of road traffic and therefore are easier to uphold a guarantee that they will run on schedule. There will not be more than 250 residents per train or tram station in any given region, so this may roughly equal at least one train or tram station within a kilometre from any point in the inner suburbs, and and up to 3-4 kilometres in the outer suburbs. There will have to be a combination of above ground (elevated rail) and underground (subway) to handle this. Ideally, most office, factory, and retail workers should be able to use public transport for their daily commute. Most people will still own a car, for example to visit friends, go for a drive in the country, visit a hardware or furniture store, just not use it day to day for going to work and coming home when it's unneeded - with the exception being if you're someone who must take their tools around with them all day (such as a construction worker or a home calling service).
• More public spaces (and pedestrian streets) within a couple of kilometres from any resident. For example, in the inner suburbs Henley Beach Road, Richmond Road, Jeffcott St, Prospect Road, Walkerville Tce, Kensington Road, Unley Road and Goodwood would make ideal candidates. Cars would still be able to cross over them, just not travel the roads longways, so it won't interrupt the flow of traffic (or for the busiest pedestrian streets cars will cross over via an underpass or overpass). Each one could have a unique characteristic and culture, as well as display local public art (such as sculptures and monuments), and there will be buskers, fountains, and benches to add to the liveliness of the city. Each pedestrian street will have a frequent tram loop service that solely travels the length of the street making traversing up and down it fast and easy. They will be the centre of lives for most residents, because they will be quite long streets with a combination of low to medium to high density shops, with fast food outlets, high end restructure, pubs, movie theatres, supermarkets, video game arcades, clubs, department stores near the medium and high density areas, with motels, swimming pools, offices, factories or anything near the low density areas. These pedestrian streets will restore the sense of community to the each area and promote being outdoors and socialising, with virtually everything in the area accessible by foot or the tram loop services on these pedestrian streets.
• Use a neo-classical influence for all public works (plazas, fountains, bridges, public buildings, etc). Why? Because it's visually pleasing and will make the city seem classy. For example imagine if the central community areas in Mawson Lakes, West Lakes, or the Torrens around Parliament House looked like this (from an image of White City, Chicago in 1893, 200 neoclassical buildings were built within a decade before being burnt down):
  

Interesting thoughts - I agree with most of them. However, your theories on public transport are incorrect. Trams can be held up by traffic just as much as (perhaps even more than) buses. You can generally get a grade-separated busway with much higher frequency services at a significantly cheaper cost than a grade-separated rail line.

Although I like most people love neo-classical buildings, building new buildings in a style that went out of fashion almost 100 years ago is inappropriate and would serve the damage our reputation inmensely.

The neo-classical style (like all architectural style of the past) should only be applied for un-finished period buildings (i.e. parliament house, the museum); buildings that still stand but have had their facades bastardised in the past and for important buildings that have been destroyed (as has occured in Europe following WW2, or even our own Exhibition Building).

You need to adjust your numbers for the tram and train stops! In a high density area you could easily have more people than that living in a single street.

I'm not sure your zoning rules - how would you like it if I set up my butcher shop with offal pit in the garden in the middle of your 9group of 9 townhouses? I also had it open 18 hrs a day?

Waewick wrote:I'm not sure your zoning rules - how would you like it if I set up my butcher shop with offal pit in the garden in the middle of your 9group of 9 townhouses? I also had it open 18 hrs a day?

No but you see the free market will fix that by

MessiahAndrw wrote:If there was a hypothetical situation where, starting from today, I was an advisor to all of the local governments in metropolitan Adelaide. This is what I would do to craft the city into my utopian dream.

• Eliminate zoning for the majority of the city. Zoning artificially limits the growth of a city. Homes, places of work, shops, etc are forced to be spread out because they exist in different areas, which increases your daily commute distance and dependence on transportation.

But we're a big city, we have transportation. And the distance of most people's commutes would be unaffected - only the shortest would be shorter.

And zoning isn't what keeps the shops away from the people. The commercial reality is that except in very dense areas (such as the CIty and Glenelg) and huge malls, shops rely on passing trade which you generally don't get on residential streets.

Without zoning, an area's use can evolve naturally as the city grows.

Houston (Texas) famously doesn't have zoning, but that hasn't made its urban form substantially different from those places that do.

You may get a chain of corner shops pop-up and shophouses may appear in some suburbs alongside traditional town houses.

You don't need to abolish zoning for that, you just need to set the zoning to permit it along some roads.

Question for everyone else: ISTR there used to be shophouses on Diagonal Road (Warradale, I think) but they're not there now. Am I misremembering? And if not, when were they demolished?

The free-market can decide on the best use for any particular piece of land, and areas can progress without the massive complications of applying to council to rezone an area, or large sections of industrial land being left unused when it could be used for housing. Basic economics would also make it infeasible for a huge factory or mall to pop up next door to you too (they would have to purchase 100+ houses, if all 100 families were willing to sell - and for the remaining families there will always be a means to protest to your local council),

So you want councils to maintain control of what gets built but without the main tool they use to do so. What's the point of that?

so most residential neighbourhoods will still remain residential neighbours, but it still allows the creative uses of land to pop up (such as mixed development communities). There will still be some minor zoning, for example, to map out and protect parks or to encourage retailers to build along pedestrian malls, but it will not be the norm for the majority of the land.

If you want mixed development, the simplest solution is to zone for it. Zoning doesn't need to be applied everywhere, but there is no good reason to take it away from those who benefit from it most.

[*]Encourage in-fill development. Remove the illusion that living further out in cheaper. Charge utilities and services (water, electricity, gas, sewage garbage collection, telephone/Internet, public transport, taxes for mail delivery and road maintenance) at the actual cost of delivering and maintaining that service or utility to that premises. Naturally, high-density areas will be cheaper to service (more residents using the service in a single area - less distance per resident of pipes to maintain or for garbage trucks to drive). This will encourage new developments and home buyers to target free pockets of space in high density areas to fill in before developing in low density areas. However, nothing stops people who want to live in low density outer suburbs, but this will not be the norm because it won't be cheaper.

But living further out is often genuinely cheaper. Yes, it costs more to service, but the land is cheaper (due to supply and demand) and it's cheaper to build. And not all of the outer suburbs are low density.

[*]Greater investment in public transport - especially rail forms. Rail forms (such as trains and light rail/trams) are more reliable and efficient than buses.

Individually that is true. Indeed it has to be, for their inability to overtake means one breaking down is likely to have severe knockon effects. But with buses it's harder to trigger a major disruption.

They run independently of road traffic and therefore are easier to uphold a guarantee that they will run on schedule. There will not be more than 250 residents per train or tram station in any given region, so this may roughly equal at least one train or tram station within a kilometre from any point in the inner suburbs, and and up to 3-4 kilometres in the outer suburbs.

...destroying the economies of scale that would make rail economically worthwhile! And I think you underestimate the population density of the outer suburbs!

There will have to be a combination of above ground (elevated rail) and underground (subway) to handle this.

I'm curious as to where you imagine these elevated railways would go - there don't seem to be many areas suited to them.

Ideally, most office, factory, and retail workers should be able to use public transport for their daily commute.

And zoning helps ensure they can.

[*]More public spaces (and pedestrian streets) within a couple of kilometres from any resident. For example, in the inner suburbs Henley Beach Road, Richmond Road, Jeffcott St, Prospect Road, Walkerville Tce, Kensington Road, Unley Road and Goodwood would make ideal candidates. Cars would still be able to cross over them, just not travel the roads longways, so it won't interrupt the flow of traffic (or for the busiest pedestrian streets cars will cross over via an underpass or overpass). Each one could have a unique characteristic and culture, as well as display local public art (such as sculptures and monuments), and there will be buskers, fountains, and benches to add to the liveliness of the city. Each pedestrian street will have a frequent tram loop service that solely travels the length of the street making traversing up and down it fast and easy.

So the shops would lose all the passing trade from beyond the end of the road, and despite the greatly increased population the roads would have a much lower capacity. How do you envisage people would get there from the outer suburbs?

They will be the centre of lives for most residents, because they will be quite long streets with a combination of low to medium to high density shops, with fast food outlets, high end restructure, pubs, movie theatres, supermarkets, video game arcades, clubs, department stores near the medium and high density areas, with motels, swimming pools, offices, factories or anything near the low density areas. These pedestrian streets will restore the sense of community to the each area and promote being outdoors and socialising, with virtually everything in the area accessible by foot or the tram loop services on these pedestrian streets.

Why would residents want to do that in their suburb when the City, which is the main source of value for land in their area, would make a much better centre of their lives? And why do you want their suburb to take over that role? Don't you think people who actually desire that kind of thing where they live would prefer to live in the City itself?

[*]Use a neo-classical influence for all public works (plazas, fountains, bridges, public buildings, etc). Why? Because it's visually pleasing and will make the city seem classy. For example imagine if the central community areas in Mawson Lakes, West Lakes, or the Torrens around Parliament House looked like this (from an image of White City, Chicago in 1893, 200 neoclassical buildings were built within a decade before being burnt down):[/list]

It seems rather boring to stick to one style for all areas - surely a great function of architecture is to give each area unique features?