Page 5 of 10
Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 9:00 pm
by jimmy_2486
Well thats right, I mean the way I see it is why should we be building more suburbs if we still need to service the ones we have now a bit better?
I mean people should be thinking about living in a smaller place when they want to move out and start, and they are still fairly cheap.
Makes sence?
Id like to hear what people say about that.
Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 9:18 pm
by jimmy_2486
AG wrote:
Sydney has the intense CityRail network and lots of buses running around the CBD.
Dont forget their monorail.
Where is our monorail!!!
We should have one to replace the 99C where the 99B is replaced by the tram extension loop!
How cool would that be!!
Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 9:43 pm
by jimmy_2486
BTW im only dreaming with the monorail idea, dont think im serious for this lifetime anyway!!
Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 10:22 pm
by Norman
Monorails are extremely inefficient. Trams are very efficient though.
Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 10:25 pm
by jimmy_2486
Really how so?
esecially over trams?
Re: Growth dangers in fringe suburbs
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:05 pm
by AG
More land for Adelaide housing
RHIANNON HOYLE
July 25, 2007 02:00pm
ADELAIDE'S urban growth boundary will be "re-aligned" to include an extra 2,000ha of land, the State Government announced today.
Premier Mike Rann said the land would help to meet urban development needs over the next 15 to 20 years.
The majority of land to be brought into the boundary will be in the city's north.
With defence and mining projects in the pipeline, this - Mr Rann said - would be the main focus of Adelaide's future growth.
There is also additional land being brought inside the boundary in the south, and a small parcel at Highbury in the east.
Re: Growth dangers in fringe suburbs
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:23 pm
by jimmy_2486
Lets hope they pump in enough infrastructure to make it worth while to live there.
We have a habit of delaying such things.
Id like to see the government spend more in the north, it has so much more potential than the south, however having no beaches and heaps of industrial zones is a major let down.
Re: Growth dangers in fringe suburbs
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:41 pm
by AtD
What's the point of the urban growth boundary if they keep moving it back? We're not going to get urban infill, just more endless sprawl.
Jimmy, re: Infrastructure. That's the exact reason they have the UGB in the first place. And we're not just talking road infrastructure. The cost per citizen of providing health, education and police services balloons out as urban sprawl grows beyond their limits. Thus the cost to the taxpayer is greater, so we're the ones who end up subsidising it all.
This is what I was talking about in the South Road thread, the cycle of sprawl and car dependence.
Re: Growth dangers in fringe suburbs
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:20 pm
by SRW
ABC News Online has a more substantial article on the boundary change:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007 ... 988038.htm
Re: Growth dangers in fringe suburbs
Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:10 pm
by crawf
This story is a bit misleading, they are really making out Adelaide is only going to get 20,000 new homes over the next 15-20 years, without taking into account the already mass land not in use within the Adelaide Growth Boundary.
20k homes is nothing for a 15-20year time frame for all of the Adelaide Metropolitan. We are currently building a average 8500 homes a year, so really we are going to get alot more houses in the next 20 years than 20,000.
Re: Growth dangers in fringe suburbs
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:28 pm
by Shuz
From the diagram they showed of the expanded 'urban boundary' appears that they have just actually released housing subdivisions within the existing boundary, so that it really just is an expansion of the urban sprawl zone, not the urban boundary zone.
I thought the boundaries revised in early 2000's were final.
Re: Growth dangers in fringe suburbs
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:04 pm
by urban
Residents fear urban sprawl
Article from: The Advertiser
RHIANNON HOYLE, REAL ESTATE EDITOR
July 27, 2007 02:15am
SOUTHERN suburbs residents are infuriated by the proposed re-alignment of the urban growth boundary, saying it will turn the region into "a nightmare".
The Southern Coalition of the Friends of Port Willunga, Southern Eco Alliance, Aldinga Bay Residents Association and Aldinga Arts Eco-Village, has attacked the State Government over the plans.
The group argues local infrastructure and services could not cope with more demand.
Aldinga Arts Eco-Village communications co-ordinator Elizabeth Heij, speaking on behalf of concerned residents, said there were fears the 400 ha inclusion at Bowering Hill would become "just another dormitory suburb".
"We are just aghast that this is being planned without getting the services and transit infrastructure in first," she said. "It will just turn the area into a nightmare.
"It is already so difficult to commute from here and it is not like there are any jobs being created in this area to go with the housing."
Coalition spokeswoman Stephanie Johnston said community groups in the south were alarmed by the proposal to extend the urban boundary at Bowering Hill.
That, she said, provided a crucial rural buffer between coastal settlements at Maslins, Port Willunga and historic Aldinga.
The Government this week unveiled plans to extend the city's urban growth boundary to include a further 2000 ha of land supply.
While most of the additional land would be added in the north of Adelaide, a 397 ha area at Bowering Hill and 289 ha at Hackham have been earmarked for development in the south.
Friends of Port Willunga chairman Christo Reid described the announcement as a land grab.
Urban Development and Planning Minister Paul Holloway said: "It needs to be understood that all we're doing here is reserving land for the next 15 to 20 years of growth.
"This land isn't going to suddenly be put on the market tomorrow."
Re: Growth dangers in fringe suburbs
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 6:47 pm
by jimmy_2486
Yeah the southerners are right there.
Im sure we could rezone inner areas to be built up more to take in the extra people and keep housing costs down. For example more newport quay Mawson Lakes/glenelg style developments. Not only are they visually appealing but they bring about a greater lifestyle for the inner metro. Marion/Brighton would be a good contender for it cos most people live in small dwellings there.
I don't understand how the government is too tight ass to upgrade our PT and wont allow us to build high, but will allow other areas to become our city fringe and extend our sub-standard PT system out to those places (which not always really happens)? If we build up then property ownership gets cheaper, but if we build new areas, they stay FAIRLY cheap for a bit but usually quickly catch up to the rest of the market.
Honestly if we want a more efficient city with improved services. This will give the opposite effect and could put us in a backward motion.
Besides the more we focus on high density developments in the inner metro, the sooner we can start thinking the same for salisbury, noarlunga, elizabeth!! Imagine what effect it will have on those areas!! A much larger one than a upgraded shopping centre will bring!!! heheh (eg Collanades, Elizabeth shopping centre).
Adelaide Density
Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 3:56 pm
by Norman
According to Wikipedia, the Top 4 Councils with the highest Density are (In order):
Unley Council (2433/km²)
Holdfast Bay Council (2358/km²)
Prospect Council (2351/km²)
Norwood, Payneham & St. Peters Council (2137/km²)
In addition, Adelaide has almost double the density compared to Sydney, and is strangely the densest city in Australia. This really shows our geographic constraints, and the fact that urban sprawl in Adelaide is limited to the Northern and Southern edges of the city.
Adelaide: 615/km²
Sydney: 345.7/km²
Melbourne: 430/km²
Perth: 280/km²
Brisbane: 308.3/km²
Compate this to Stuttgart (my old home town), which has a density of 2,847 /km²
Re: Adelaide Density
Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:24 pm
by Wayno
wow! almost double the density of Sydney - are we sure this is correct?