Sensational-Adelaide.com

Hi all

I thought I would start a new thread to discuss all things TOD since they appear to be the current flavour of the month among planning circles and senior bureaucrats in South Australia.

What do you think about TODs? What has been your experiences with TODs in Australia and around the world? Are they the right response to Adelaide's growing pains? Who will choose live in them and will they be safe and socially stable or the new urban ghettos of the 21st century?

Personally, I think they are a great idea but it is foolish to believe they will be the panacea to all of our planning problems. They need to be part of a wider planning strategy, that seeks to understand, and intelligently respond to, the changing makeup and preferences of Australian households. They should attempt to attract a broad cross-section of the community including families, retirees, young professionals, students, new immigrants and first home buyers. In order to achieve this they must be reasonably priced, provide a range of housing types and options, and have the features and amenity that are attractive to all of these people. This will certainly be a challenge but possible I believe.

Furthermore, I think there are a lot of misconceptions among the general community about TODs. Many believe they are just a bunch of high-rise apartment buildings in close proximity to a train or tram station. In my view, TODs should attempt to be 'complete' communities. They should provide opportunities for a wide range of social and recreational activities as well as housing and employment.

Anyway that's enough of an intro I think. Would love to hear everyone's thoughts......

Whats the f is a TOD ?

Where have you been the last year or so ghs? TOD = Transport Oriented Development.

As for what do I think about them? Anything that takes cars off roads and increases density in our existing suburbs i'm all up for. I think it'd be exciting to live close to a TOD.

I think the name should be changed to PTLC meaning Public Transport Linked Community. I dont understand and dont thinks its ideal why both residential and employment should be in the same place because if everything is at your doorstep why would you need to travel on public transport. I think we need to have more housing close to public transport in one area and commercial and employment in another area also close to public transport. That way it gives you a reason to travel on public transport.

Straze wrote:I think the name should be changed to PTLC meaning Public Transport Linked Community. I dont understand and dont thinks its ideal why both residential and employment should be in the same place because if everything is at your doorstep why would you need to travel on public transport. I think we need to have more housing close to public transport in one area and commercial and employment in another area also close to public transport. That way it gives you a reason to travel on public transport.

errr...not everyone will live adjacent to their place of employment, but it's certainly worth increasing the percentage of people who can walk to work.

Silly to put people here and work there just to increase PT patronage. The greenest energy is energy saved.

Straze wrote:I think we need to have more housing close to public transport in one area and commercial and employment in another area also close to public transport. That way it gives you a reason to travel on public transport.

In the context of Adelaide, I think the main reason the government is pushing TODs is to provide more housing choice and limit growth of the 'burbs. So although increasing PT usage is an important and worthy goal, it is not an end in itself. Rather the end is to reduce growth of Adelaide's urban "footprint", if you will. To reduce the incentive for farmers to sell their land to developers and discourage property speculation at the urban fringes.

Another important concept for all cities is resilience. How resilient is Adelaide to rising petrol prices, for example? Will people still be able to get to work and can living standards continue to rise in an environment of rising petrol prices?

So there are numerous reasons why TODs can be high-value investments, at all three levels- economic, environmental and social. Others include safety: more "eyes on the street"; community development: more opportunities to have casual interactions with your neighbors; and health: walk to local shops instead of driving, for example.

There are other ends which can be achieved through Transit Oriented Development too: creating places people find interesting and exciting to live and work in, as Howie says; freeing up more space for parks, gardens, skate parks, etc.; and fewer road-related injuries and deaths.

In my opinion High Density means there is a larger population in a small area, usually living in apartments, but due to more people this often increases noise, decreases private space (no backyard), to rent or purchase a property comes more expensive than a low density area. Low density means low population, less noise, more private space (backyard), rent or purchase prices are more affordable. I think that we need to slow down population growth and fix the problems we have now i.e employment, public transport, education, health and security.

Straze wrote:In my opinion High Density means there is a larger population in a small area, usually living in apartments, but due to more people this often increases noise, decreases private space (no backyard), to rent or purchase a property comes more expensive than a low density area. Low density means low population, less noise, more private space (backyard), rent or purchase prices are more affordable. I think that we need to slow down population growth and fix the problems we have now i.e employment, public transport, education, health and security.

What's missing here is that TODs are part of the solution to improving things such as public transport, issues of affordability and other economically, socially and environmentally related issues. In the case of public transport, the key reason why it's so inefficient is due to a combination of low-density and an excessive focus on a single point for it to function (the CBD). The main reason for promoting the use of TODs is to improve the efficiency of the services that currently exist, and they address all of the issues you've mentioning directly or in an indirect form.

How much money do we spend on simple things like pipes, electricity and roads to service new suburbs? council revenues can be increased via higher densities giving more money to spend on the nice things rather than the boring basics.

I would love to see some comparisons on the cost of services/utilities in Australia as compared to some higher density countries in Europe, and what they get for their money.

Look at the roads in Japan as an example, high quality rather than quantity

Straze wrote:In my opinion High Density means there is a larger population in a small area, usually living in apartments, but due to more people this often increases noise, decreases private space (no backyard), to rent or purchase a property comes more expensive than a low density area. Low density means low population, less noise, more private space (backyard), rent or purchase prices are more affordable. I think that we need to slow down population growth and fix the problems we have now i.e employment, public transport, education, health and security.

You're cherry-picking Straze. You only talk about your perceived advantages of low-density and disadvantages of high-density.

Take a look on google maps and you will see many people, it would at least appear, don't look after their back yards or use them. Here's one for example (hope it's not your place ) - http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=adelaide&i ... 3&t=k&z=20

Low density can also mean longer travel times, less convenience and less safety at night. Social isolation and mental health issues can also be a problem in economically depressed, low density neighborhoods.

Regarding noise in higher-density neighborhoods, new technology, building materials and design methods can also help to address this. I currently live in an apartment building in Vancouver, British Columbia and I rarely hear my neighbors.

Your point about cost is pertinent though and I think there needs to be a concerted effort by governments to provide affordable options in these developments without sacrificing standard of living space. If they are popular and their values go up as a result than that is great but I think we should make every effort possible to avoid the problems of social segregation through income-sorting.

Thanks Chris RT for giving me more information about Transit Orientated Developments, i misunderstood the concept at first. Now i have been looking at many locations around Adelaide where Transit Orientated Developments would be ideal. If i want to post any suggestions for TOD sites can i post it here or in the visions section.

ChrisRT wrote:Take a look on google maps and you will see many people, it would at least appear, don't look after their back yards or use them. Here's one for example (hope it's not your place ) - http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=adelaide&i ... 3&t=k&z=20

Sorry ChrisRT but I had a chuckle when I looked at your link.. maybe they dont look after their backyards because they are smack bang on the flight path!

kenget wrote:

ChrisRT wrote:Take a look on google maps and you will see many people, it would at least appear, don't look after their back yards or use them. Here's one for example (hope it's not your place ) - http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=adelaide&i ... 3&t=k&z=20

Sorry ChrisRT but I had a chuckle when I looked at your link.. maybe they dont look after their backyards because they are smack bang on the flight path!

I had a wry chuckle at the place just north-west of the one in the link - where a single house was replaced by three units. It's a great example of how to give density a bad name. Especially since our allergy to anything over one storey means that they are built like enormous worms.

Looking at them in the street view shows that they gave them "heritage details" like a tiny bullnose verandah and a finial over the garage, which is practically the only part of the houses that's visible from the street. I suppose that "maintains the neighbourhood character", or something. God help me, we need some good examples of how to add density into existing suburbs, especially ones that don't involve paving the entire frontage of the plot to provide parking access.