News & Discussion: The 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide

[fabricator]

What is funny is the tram line shown down The Parade, as council staff at Norwood didn't know about the plans at all. Real strange considering they had the same idea to re-instate it as well. Nice consultation with local government there Mr Rann.

[crawf]

Thanks for your input Nathan, much appreciated.

[rhino]

From Adelaide Now:

Pack more people into city - Harbison
TOM ZED
October 16, 2009 02:10pm

ADELAIDE needs to embrace the type of high-density, multi-storey housing that is common in the US and Europe, Lord Mayor Michael Harbison says.
Citing medium to high-density residential developments in revitalised cities across the globe, Mr Harbison called on the State Government and Adelaide City Council to push for similar developments here as a priority under the state's 30-Year Plan.
He said redeveloping the city and inner suburbs with more high-density housing was the best way to meet the Government's population growth targets.
He also indicated that approving taller residential buildings in the city would be a key step forward.
"I think the goal of 70 per cent in-fill and 30 per cent greenfields (fringe development) is what we must do, but my fear is that for the first 10 years we'll do the greenfields and put off doing the in-fill," he said today at a Capital City Committee Forum at the Adelaide Convention Centre .
"We must make sure that we make some advancement on that 70 per cent in-fill development and not just focus on the greenfields.
"(In other cities) they're paying developers to build taller buildings - generally we take them to court to stop them building taller buildings," he said.
"That's the frontier we've got to cross."

[Omicron]

Don't pay developers to build higher buildings, but at least let them propose them with a realistic chance that they'll be accepted. If both brilliance of design and height limit intrusions are knocked back based purely on height, then there is no incentive to even flirt with the idea. There is, obviously, a limit to these things - I can, for example, see the logic in height restrictions at Glenelg to avoid the risk of five forty-storey cylindrical Atlantic Towers being able to pass through with ease (tall and ugly is far more demonstrably offensive than short and ugly, essentially), but within reason, there needs to be a idea put forward that a damn good proposal would be seriously considered if the most important boxes (street interaction, aesthetics, environmental impact and so on) were ticked with a Swarovski fountain pen rather than all boxes ticked with a generic pencil. That is, a Council putting out the challenge to developers to wow them, and in doing so earning their lenience on certain issues.

This notion is almost entirely without precedence in Adelaide, so it's not surprising that it is so rarely attempted - there would be very few successful develpments that made it through on the basis of desirablity outweighing compliance to specific by-laws and regulations, and hence no good examples of how to get it done. That's both a stern finger pointed at councils and developers alike - those who design the painfully cynical rubbish, and the design laws that facilitate them.

[Norman]

Buffer zones shield towns from sprawl
DANIEL WILLS

December 29, 2009 12:01am

GROWTH targets for the CBD will surge and country centres will get protections against urban sprawl in major changes to the State Government's 30-year plan.

The draft development blueprint met criticism this year from residents on Adelaide's fringes who said over-development would devastate the character of their towns.

The Government has since received about 570 public submissions and will today announce a string of "interim" changes, including:

BUFFER zones around Gawler and McLaren Vale that cannot be built on.

RAISING the CBD's population increase target by 11,000 to 27,300.

BOOSTING the number of transport-oriented developments to 14.

SHIFTING 29,000 new residents planned for the Barossa region to the northern suburbs.

Premier Mike Rann said public consultation had revealed a "strong preference" for slower growth in the Barossa and Willunga Basin.

"While this is a plan for the Greater Adelaide area, it is also a blueprint for retaining the district identity of Adelaide and the towns beyond its boundaries," he said.

"It will also ensure development that complements the character of these townships."

Planning and Urban Development Minister Paul Holloway said a new TOD was planned for Mawson Lakes and increasing the CBD's population would help Adelaide remain "a vibrant and dynamic city".

Gawler mayor Brian Sambell said the buffer zone was a critical safeguard to stop the town being over-developed.

Lord Mayor Michael Harbison said the revised CBD population target remained "modest".

"To achieve greater productivity in our economy, we need to move to a denser configuration," he said.

[Wayno]

BOOSTING the number of transport-oriented developments to 14.

Where will the extra TOD be located? There's 13 in the original 30yr Plan, including the CBD:

Page 80: Plan for 58,500 dwellings in 13 transit-oriented developments and more than 20 sites that incorporate transit-oriented development principles and design characteristics.

[AG]

BOOSTING the number of transport-oriented developments to 14.

Where will the extra TOD be located? There's 13 in the original 30yr Plan, including the CBD:

Page 80: Plan for 58,500 dwellings in 13 transit-oriented developments and more than 20 sites that incorporate transit-oriented development principles and design characteristics.

Planning and Urban Development Minister Paul Holloway said a new TOD was planned for Mawson Lakes and increasing the CBD's population would help Adelaide remain "a vibrant and dynamic city".

Also, there's a map on page 5 of this section of Chapter D with the proposed TODs marked in blue dots. http://www.dplg.sa.gov.au/plan4adelaide ... _D1-D5.pdf

[Will]

This is excellent news. Urban sprawl is something which must be curtailled as far as reasonably possible. TOD's aswell as a higher density CBD are the future. Such development bring many benefits, of which the environmental as well as the vibe aspects are in my opinion the msot important.

I hope that this decision is not just empty rhetoric however, and that the government now as it has displayed in its decision to build the 15 level building at 102 Waymouth Street, becomes an active participant in the development of afordable accomodation in the CBD. Because if just left to the private sector, the population targets will never be reached, not to mention that the CBD would become some exclusive enclave for the rich.

[Norman]

BOOSTING the number of transport-oriented developments to 14.

Where will the extra TOD be located? There's 13 in the original 30yr Plan, including the CBD:

Page 80: Plan for 58,500 dwellings in 13 transit-oriented developments and more than 20 sites that incorporate transit-oriented development principles and design characteristics.

I think the 14th one is Mawson Lakes.

[Wayno]

An Article by Alexander Downer about SA's future

From AdelaideNow - Jan 3rd:

THE Advertiser on New Year's Day contained a series of comments from community leaders about what South Australia needs for the future.

The comments made interesting reading.

The President of the Local Government Association said she wanted a new partnership between governments to compete with the eastern states.

The vice-chancellor of UniSA said the SA economy needed careful management (as distinct from?), the director of the Fringe wanted an exciting vision, someone else wanted more done on water and several wanted more money spent on infrastructure.

Now that all sounds fair enough - unexciting, not very imaginative, but not a problem.

There is, though, an underlying theme in the remarks of all nine people interviewed by The Advertiser. In almost every case they are looking to the South Australian State Government to solve the state's problems.

This is a very big ask. Why people who are highly paid to run organisations representing different sectors of the state think that the Government is the solution to their problems is beyond me.

The State Government has very real limitations on what it can do to create a better society. Its Budget is fairly small, despite SA being the highest taxed state in Australia.

That means it can invest in only a select number of carefully targeted infrastructure projects and its positive impact on economic activity is limited.

Of course the Government could do real damage to society. As it stands, politicians on North Terrace have a remarkable capacity to introduce rules and regulations to guide us through our daily lives which are patronising and intrusive. Even more seriously, a government could behave irresponsibly with its budget.

It is a major mistake, though, to exaggerate what the State Government can do, regardless of the party in power.

That is why the nine people interviewed by The Advertiser should be thinking and talking not about what the State Government can do for the future of the State, but about what they can do.

The Local Government Association should be drawing up plans to improve the efficiency of local government and to find ways of getting investment into local infrastructure without always thinking that another level of government can carry all of the burden.

South Australia has far too many local councils and there should be more effort made to try to amalgamate some of them, thereby creating more viable local government units which can achieve economies of scale. Much more should be done to encourage local governments to share resources.

Of course, some of this has been done over the years but the Local Government Association can be at the forefront of a drive to achieve better government at the local level.

Certainly, everyone would agree money should be spent on infrastructure. That's hardly the point. The central points are where to get the money for investment in infrastructure, and also what kind of infrastructure is needed in SA.

If projects can be structured in such a way as to generate a financial return, then investors will appear. If a project is not going to bring any return which can be financially captured, then there will be real limitations on funding because it will have to come straight out of people's taxes.

Additionally, in order to attract investment and generate a real return for the community, an infrastructure project must be more than sticking a few pink insulation bats in someone's roof or adorning a school hall with pictures of Julia Gillard. Real infrastructure projects are about building water and energy resources, and upgrading roads, rail and ports.

Let's face it, SA is a long way from anywhere, so we need to make sure our energy and transport infrastructure is top class.

So what those who call for more investment in infrastructure need to do is think carefully about the purpose of the infrastructure project and how to capture the financial benefits which come from the investment. In Victoria, the government facilitated the massive City Link roads project by imposing tolls. Tolls may not always be popular but they do provide a way of getting private sector investment into the road system.

IT'S the same with water.

It's not that South Australia is without water - the problem is, there is a lack of investment in water infrastructure because the price charged for water has historically been too low to finance the infrastructure investments necessary, and because of the very high cost of building new energy resources to power the water project (not helped by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's uncertain and ineffective carbon tax proposal).

It is not really leadership to be crying out that there is insufficient water in the Murray Darling system and to suggest that somehow there is a quick fix to that problem. The truth is, there is no overnight solution.

What makes more sense is for leaders to come forward with new and exciting proposals on how to fund water infrastructure. That is what we are looking for in 2010.

If we are going to wait for the SA Government to invest in all of these projects, we will be waiting until 3010. They simply do not have the resources.

Our community leaders should not be pressuring our political parties in the lead-up to a state election to make wild and unsustainable promises which, if ever they were implemented, would bankrupt the State Government.

When it comes to the economy, we need to hear from the business community what its plans are to broaden and restructure the economy of the state.

The State Government focuses on mining and defence industries - which is fine. Adelaide should be able to do better than that trying to develop itself as an education and technology centre.

Comparable cities in the United States like Austin in Texas have been able to do that successfully and much of the initiative has come from the private sector, not from the government.

I doubt there is much the State Government can do to encourage the evolution of technologically sophisticated industries in Adelaide except get out of the way, leave them alone, avoid taxing them excessively and resist the temptation of introducing a surfeit of new regulations.

Next year, when community leaders are interviewed about the future of SA let us hope they will reveal their own plans for making this a better place.

Alexander Downer was Minister for Foreign Affairs from 1996 to 2007.

[monotonehell]

Because selling off the "profitable" parts of our infrastructure creating monopolies has worked so well for us so far. He speaks to a lack of investement in water infrastructure. Water is in the hands of the private sector, as is electricity. The problem is business are only interested in taking on these concerns if they're protected from real competition. So the systems set up are never exposed to a free market proper. We then end up with a system where no one wants to invest in infrastructure because there's no profit in it.

[iTouch]

Question, is the land east of sellicks and aldinga vineyards and farmland? I don't live down there so I don't really know this stuff (plus google satellite / street view isnt working on my computer today) If not, why don't they expand that way to connect with willunga?

[Wayno]

FYI...

The ACC & the State Govt are working to ensure the Greater Adelaide 30 Year Plan dovetails with the work already done by the ACC on the "Adelaide City Development Plan Review (Aug 2008)". This is expected to delay the release of the amended Dev Plan by 6-12months, but should result in additional improvements such as allowing for greater building height along the South & East Terraces as well as around Whitmore & Hurtle Squares.

[jk1237]

good. I think buildings of up to 10 levels are acceptable around Hurtle and Whitmore. Light and Hindmarsh squares should be up to 40 levels

[Omicron]

good. I think buildings of up to 10 levels are acceptable around Hurtle and Whitmore. Light and Hindmarsh squares should be up to 40 levels

Simply for the sake of proportion and balance, both the second half of Aurora and the Pulteney St. block beside the new Crowne Plaza and Hungry Jacks (which, let's face it, is likely to come onto the market in good time) need to be a touch higher - even Conservatory height would be a reasonable outcome. If they're exactly the same height as their neighbours, we'll have a wall of The Dreadful Sameness, and I'll get all upset.