Housing Developments | Northern Suburbs

All high-rise, low-rise and street developments in areas other than the CBD and North Adelaide. Includes Port Adelaide and Glenelg.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Cruise
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2209
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:19 pm
Location: Bay 115, Football Park

Re: More sprawl for the north

#61 Post by Cruise » Mon Aug 20, 2007 2:08 pm

could be semi rural area, dunno really

User avatar
Cruise
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2209
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:19 pm
Location: Bay 115, Football Park

Re: More sprawl for the north

#62 Post by Cruise » Mon Aug 20, 2007 2:12 pm

Also that pic should really have its own sticky thread dont you think? (along with the CBD heights limits map)

User avatar
Bulldozer
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 451
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:00 am
Location: Brisbane (nee Adelaide)

Re: More sprawl for the north

#63 Post by Bulldozer » Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:39 pm

Same with the southern changes, there's meant to be open space to preserve the semi-rural character. It's pissed off a lot of people down there. Read in the local rag last week that Onkaparinga Council is going to oppose any new development unless the government puts in infrastructure that's already badly needed.

User avatar
Ho Really
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2305
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:29 pm
Location: In your head
Has thanked: 874 times
Been thanked: 108 times

Re: More sprawl for the north

#64 Post by Ho Really » Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:49 am

crawf wrote:Great find, Though what is the black line?
That should be the metro area local council limit (or something named like that). Anything outside that are country councils.

Cheers
Confucius say: Dumb man climb tree to get cherry, wise man spread limbs.

User avatar
duke
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 398
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 7:15 pm
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: More sprawl for the north

#65 Post by duke » Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:34 am

A NORTHERN Adelaide council wants to give away hundreds of blocks of prime residential land to help ease the housing affordability crisis.

The state's fastest-growing council area - Salisbury - will identify up to "several hundred" blocks to give to home buyers.

Under the Salisbury plan, new landholders will have to pay only for the cost of their newly-built home and will get the council-owned land without charge.

However, they will be required to pay the council a share of the property's total value if it is sold later.

The Real Estate Institute of SA said the housing affordability plan, the first of its kind in Australia, has worked well in the U.S. and Britain.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 01,00.html


Hopefully more councils can do things like this to boost existing areas rather than just keep pushing out. The land is there, why not use it.

User avatar
rhino
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2939
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Nairne
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 115 times

Re: More sprawl for the north

#66 Post by rhino » Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:46 am

It depends on how much land the council owns. Tony Zappia (mayor of Salisbury) said this morning that the Salisbury Council owns more land than it needs, so it can offer this deal. The same may not be true for all other councils, and unfortunately, it is probably more true for the councils out at the extremities of the urban area. It's probably cost-prohibitive for councils to actively purchase land to be able to offer a deal like this, except further out where land is cheaper.

Having said that, Well Done to Salisbury Council for biting the bullet and doing something positive towards housing affordability.
cheers,
Rhino

User avatar
Norman
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5716
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:06 pm
Has thanked: 778 times
Been thanked: 1419 times

Re: More sprawl for the north

#67 Post by Norman » Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:53 am

Yes, well done to Salisbury. We have to remember in the Adelaide Hills it's more difficult as the ground is very hilly and too steep in some places to build, while others are simply unusable or covered by National Park legislation.

User avatar
duke
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 398
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 7:15 pm
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: More sprawl for the north

#68 Post by duke » Tue Aug 28, 2007 12:38 pm

normangerman wrote:Yes, well done to Salisbury. We have to remember in the Adelaide Hills it's more difficult as the ground is very hilly and too steep in some places to build, while others are simply unusable or covered by National Park legislation.

I remember seeing something a few years ago about how people wanted to build more on the hills. The government said that there was to be no development on the face of the hills because they wanted to protect the look of them.
So this is possibly more land that could be developed if they were not concerned about the 'look'. There isn't really much to look at at the moment in my opinion anyway. Its a dark green color sometimes with smoke coming out of it..
Could do with a Hollywood style "ADELAIDE" sign on top I think :P

User avatar
Ho Really
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2305
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:29 pm
Location: In your head
Has thanked: 874 times
Been thanked: 108 times

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

#69 Post by Ho Really » Sun Sep 16, 2007 10:01 am

More work required
The Saturday Advertiser
September 15, 2007

DEVELOPERS behind the proposed Buckland Park development will need to produce an environmental impact statement before being approved, Parliament has been told.

Urban Development and Training Minister Paul Holloway said the statement should address issues including potential flooding, infrastructure, water supply and demands on community services.

The Buckland Park proposal is for a township housing more than 15,000 people on a 1000-ha site, between Virginia and Port Gawler.
Cheers
Confucius say: Dumb man climb tree to get cherry, wise man spread limbs.

User avatar
Cruise
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2209
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:19 pm
Location: Bay 115, Football Park

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

#70 Post by Cruise » Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:43 am

anything new on this?

User avatar
SRW
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 2507
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:42 pm
Location: City
Has thanked: 585 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

#71 Post by SRW » Tue Oct 02, 2007 10:39 am

Hopefully it's been or will be ditched...
Keep Adelaide Weird

P.K.
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:53 pm

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

#72 Post by P.K. » Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:06 pm

Hello everyone.
I’m not sure how I stumbled upon this forum or who the people are who are posting in it, but after reading this thread I felt I should say a few words. There are a few people dead against this development, and I can not understand why. I have read articles in the paper and letters to the editor about why in their infinite wisdom this development should not go ahead. “Its too far away”, “its more urban sprawl”, “there’s no infrastructure”, “it smells out there because of bolivar”, “it will flood” “there’s not enough electricity and water in Adelaide now” and it goes on…
Why is someone who lives in Marion or Norwood concerned about a low cost housing development in the north anyway!
Let’s have a quick think about some of these…
Firstly do you really, think that the walker corporation, run by Australia’s 11th richest man is going to invest in a development without considering infrastructure, flooding, power and water etc, come on!!!
Considering the proximity to the bolivar treatment works, and the amount of housing, that is both closer, and down stream from where the wind blows most of the time, I don’t think the cats pee smell will be a problem. There is a smell out there, that is from the compost plant that has been established up the road from many houses (how this was approved I’ll never know).
Most of the people who will live out there already live in Adelaide, they are already using your power and water.
If it means our younger couples can afford to buy a house then I say bring it on, they’ve got no chance closer to the city. What about lower rents available for our younger people, or investment opportunities for people with lower incomes?
Too far away? From what? it takes 20 minutes to get to Gepps Cross and for the destroyer project it would be a 35 minute drive to get to Osbourne, without even considering employment in the north. Look at Sydney and Melbourne, it is nothing to drive for an hour to get to work. Adelaide can’t remain a sleepy hollow forever, if that’s what you want, then maybe you should move to a small country town.
The way I see it, the only people who should be against this development are the people who moved out to Buckland Park to get away from the main population, but these people will benefit from increased land values if the development does go ahead, maybe they didn’t move far enough away?
Then there’s an MP saying that this development shouldn’t go ahead if it doesn’t run on rainwater and renewable energy? What’s with that? Do all new subdivisions have to be set up this way? No, then why single out this one? If someone else plans something like this at Seaford or Craigmore, will the same demands be made? I doubt it, what’s the big deal? People have to live somewhere!
If the engineers can plan for a flood free development then the benefits from this development by far out way the negatives, that’s my 2 cents worth.

P.K.

Will
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5540
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 691 times
Been thanked: 152 times

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

#73 Post by Will » Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:33 pm

P.K. wrote:Hello everyone.
Too far away? From what? it takes 20 minutes to get to Gepps Cross and for the destroyer project it would be a 35 minute drive to get to Osbourne, without even considering employment in the north. Look at Sydney and Melbourne, it is nothing to drive for an hour to get to work. Adelaide can’t remain a sleepy hollow forever, if that’s what you want, then maybe you should move to a small country town.

P.K.
Actually, forcing people to live further away from the CBD will not improve the vibe, buzz of the city, due to the simple fact, that these people will live too far away from the CBD, and hence although they live in 'Adelaide' they will contribute very little to the energy of the city, because they will probaably only come into the CBD once a year. Furthermore, have you considered the costs involved to the governemtn by continuous urban sprawl? The people living here will want access to public transport, hospitals, schools...etc. Urban Sprawl is not longer sustainable, economically or environmentally.

urban
Legendary Member!
Posts: 578
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:59 am
Location: City of Unley
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

#74 Post by urban » Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:35 pm

P.K., I like to think that Adelaide is smarter than Melbourne and Sydney and will avoid the ad hoc planning decisions which have led to people having to drive an hour to get to work.

Walker corporation are involved because they will pay a nominal cost for the land and a few dollars to do the subdivision while the state government will spend over the years $100 million plus constructing and maintaining the infrastructure. Walker Corporation then take home a handsome profit by selling the land at highly inflated prices.

If the state govt spent the same money subsidising inner city housing we would have a significantly more vibrant city with decent quality infrastructure. Instead we have appalling public transport, crumbling water infrastructure and overstretched electricity infrastructure.

Housing estate developers perpetuate this myth of cheap land on the outskirts. It is only cheap because it is heavily subsidised. This urban sprawl cannot be justified on economic, environmental or social grounds.

P.K.
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:53 pm

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

#75 Post by P.K. » Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:10 pm

A privately set up subdivision in an area where there is currently nothing would have to be cheaper than to buy up existing properties, renew the aging water supply systems and redeveloping, surely. And as for the other, the plans include a medical centre, and school. Public transport exists already in virginia, it could be as simple as extending a bus route by 5 kilometres.

It is because of developments like this that Adelaide is a far better place to live than Sydney or Melbourne, for example west lakes, goldern grove, mawson lakes.

This development is not about keeping the vibe and buzz of adelaide alive, its about giving people somewhere to live. Its up to the individual if they want to shop in the city or suburbs.

Who is subsidising this development? I dont remeber Mike Rann standing up and saying we're going to put another 1 billion dollars into this project, no, because its not subsidised by taxpayers, its a private development!

Was everyone against the mawson lakes development?

If you think we need to fill in the gaps? you have to talk to joe the veggie grower about that, he's waiting for his land to be worth more before he sells.

I do not claim to be the state treasurer or similar but I think the government will spend more money over the next few years repairing underground plumbing in the older develloped suburbs than they will at Buckland Park and mawson lakes combined because of materials and methods used. The up keep on the roads, parks etc would become the local councils responsibility and the rate payers will be subsidising that. That would be an extra 8,000 rate payers to the playford council, and for the first few years all they will need to worry about is the cost of rubbish collection, hmmm...

The only difference to this and every other subdevelopment is the size, of course someone is going to make money out of it, its why people invest money in realestate, and because of its size some people are going to make a lot of money, good luck to them.

Did anyone stop delfin because they were going to make a heap of money out of west lakes? what about the individual who bought a house on delfin island so many years ago and is selling it to make a huge profit now, are they bad people?

There is talk of smaller blocks of land being available for $100K, is that a bad thing? sounds good to me although I haven't seen them advertised just yet, we'll just have to wait and see about that one.

Good for veggies, not out there its not, all the good land is closer to port wakefield road, yeah thats right, virginia grove estate is on prime horticultural land, how come no one is complaining about that?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A-Town and 3 guests