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.
Message
Author
User avatar
Nathan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3143
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:09 pm
Location: Bowden
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 621 times
Contact:

Re: Housing Developments | Northern Suburbs

#736 Post by Nathan » Thu Oct 24, 2013 4:48 pm

rev wrote:So what's the solution?

Majority of people don't want to live in apartments in the suburbs. They still want a decent(by todays standards) sized block with their own home on it.
The size of block has become smaller, so there's a few more people living within the redeveloped housing projects or infill stuff(like Westwood, Mawson Lakes and St Clair).
I think you missed Messia's point. He's not against the existence of suburbia, he's against this form of development.
This sort of development will always happen though.
If we experience a population boom, it will happen even more so. Perhaps it might even start happening in regional towns as well.
This sort of development won't always happen, if planning prevents it. It will only continue to happen if we keep relaxing the belt around the urban boundaries and allow greenfield development.

Also, want /= need. There's a huge percentage of people who want houses way beyond what they actually need, and avoid smaller housing (such as terraces or apartments) because they don't think they'll fit (rather than they don't actually fit). The solution is education, and showing people not only can they live in smaller housing, but it comes with it's own set of benefits as well. That's the reason the government is serious about getting Bowden right - it'll be the used as the example of medium density of living.

MessiahAndrw
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:05 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Housing Developments | Northern Suburbs

#737 Post by MessiahAndrw » Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:13 am

rev wrote:This sort of development will always happen though.
Suburban sprawl is among the most expensive forms to build, both as a developer and to build and maintain the infrastructure, on a per capita basis.

It exists largely as a product of regulation (modern zoning makes it hard to build anything but what they dictate - such as single family homes) and big government - small towns low-density without a strong urban core, are the most effected - they become dependent on growth in-order to pay the bills incurred by the previous generation (known as the Suburban Ponzi scheme.)

Australia hasn't had it as bad as the U.S. - which experienced white flight that hollowed out the wealth of cities to the outskirts, and a national freeway system (the Interstate) that divided neighbourhoods and made it easier to divide the gap between work and home.
rev wrote:Majority of people don't want to live in apartments in the suburbs. They still want a decent(by todays standards) sized block with their own home on it.
First of all, "apartments in the suburbs" is a flawed concept that will be hard to sell. Suburbia sell you with what is out the back (the yard), while urbia sells what is out the front (community life, walking distance to libraries, cafes, parks). "Apartments in the suburbs" (unless it's a very urbanized suburb) is the worst of both worlds.

If you try to sell a townhouse without a town, you're just selling a very narrow house.

When you try to achieve density in the suburbs by merely building up, you end up with the radiant city (skyscrapers in the suburbs) - also not good.

Second of all, most people don't want to live in Manhatten or Hong Kong once they start having children.
rev wrote:So what's the solution?
If I had to choose a form that's highly walkable and intimate, without being overwhelming (skyscrapers, wide streets) I would choose the traditional city pattern.

If that's not your taste, you can still build walkable suburbia. Think of Prospect circa 1940s/"street car suburbs". Every family gets a yard and a house, yet a densely connected street network that makes it highly walkable around a town centre (think 1940's Prospect Rd with modern amenities - a line of grocery stores, butches, hair dressers pubs, side by side.) You may still need to drive to leave your suburb, but you shouldn't have to drive to get around your own suburb.

The "smart growth" mob is trying to bring this back - think Mawson Lakes - and while they achieved a walkable density, they failed on the layout. Windy, disconnected streets that often force you to take the longest route between points.

If I were to plan out a Mawson Lakes-style development today, I would shift the train station down more into the middle, place the shops/schools ('town centre') around the station - then layout the streets in a radial pattern around the shops (the best way to encourage walking is by reducing the walking distance, which the the radial pattern is highly efficient at - the shortest path between two points is a direct line).

Image
My blog on urban design: http://www.andrewalexanderprice.com/blog.php

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 288 times
Contact:

Re: Housing Developments | Northern Suburbs

#738 Post by monotonehell » Fri Oct 25, 2013 9:40 am

MessiahAndrw wrote:If you try to sell a townhouse without a town, you're just selling a very narrow house.
I like that one. :lol:
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

User avatar
ChillyPhilly
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:35 pm
Location: Adder-Laid, South Australia.
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 445 times
Contact:

Re: Housing Developments | Northern Suburbs

#739 Post by ChillyPhilly » Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:47 pm

A bucketload of land between Andrews Farm and Angle Vale has been rezoned from agricultural to residential. This is part of the 'Playford Extension'.

:wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash:
Our state, our city, our future.

All views expressed on this forum are my own.

User avatar
ChillyPhilly
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:35 pm
Location: Adder-Laid, South Australia.
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 445 times
Contact:

Re: Housing Developments | Northern Suburbs

#740 Post by ChillyPhilly » Tue Feb 11, 2014 12:55 am

Planning Minister John Rau warns ongoing urban sprawl will create ‘fringe ghettos’ as massive Roseworthy expansion is rejected

DANIEL WILLS STATE POLITICAL EDITOR THE ADVERTISER FEBRUARY 10, 2014

PLANNING Minister John Rau has warned ongoing urban sprawl will create “fringe ghettos” demanding huge taxpayer subsidy, after rejecting calls for a massive expansion of Roseworthy.

The Advertiser today revealed Mr Rau had approved further study on a plan to grow the northern township of Roseworthy by about 6000 people over about a decade.

A final rezoning decision is unlikely to be made before next year.

The township is 50km from the CBD, just north of Gawler.

The State Government’s 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide allows capacity for a 100,000-person expansion by 2040.

Mr Rau said there was no current need for such a “mega-complex”.

Opposition Leader Steven Marshall has reportedly promised to make Roseworthy a “top priority” and to do “everything we can to remove red tape to make sure that this project goes ahead”.

Mr Rau said the full-scale expansion of Roseworthy “dwarfs any other proposal that has been floating around in this state for decades”.

He said it was two and a half times the size of the Buckland Park development, which the Government was heavily criticised for approving.

Mr Rau today released new studies he said showed the cost of living on the fringe was higher for homeowners and created huge additional infrastructure costs for all taxpayers.

“The opportunity really is here for us to completely reframe the policy debate,” he said.

“The Liberal Party has made it clear that they have a 19th Century view of how the city should grow, that it should grow through endless urban sprawl.

“The proof of that pudding is in their announcement ... they would support a massive 40,000 home development in the region of Roseworthy.

“That is urban sprawl writ large.”

He said under the Government, Adelaide would “continue to grow, but it won’t grow in the sense of its footprint expanding endlessly to the north and the south”.

Mr Rau said further fringe development risked “creating basically fringe ghettos”.

“(Having) 100,000 people (at Roseworthy), it would have to be so heavily subsidised by the taxpayer to make it viable, it wouldn’t be funny,” he said.

Opposition development spokesman Vickie Chapman said the Government had wasted the time and money of the housing sector by delaying a decision on Roseworthy.

Asked what decision she would make on Roseworthy, Ms Chapman said: “It’s got to be assessed”.

“If they don’t do anything with it or they do a half-baked thing with it, then obviously we would review it on coming into government but, generally where they have approved things, we don’t go behind that because the investors have already started,” she said.

“It can create a double problem by simply saying ‘we would reverse the decision’,” she said.

Property Council of Australia SA executive director Richard Angrove said a planning focus on inner and middle Adelaide would promote vibrancy across the state.

“Adelaide City is the central hub of activity for South Australia,” he said. “South Australia’s low levels of population growth have meant expansion further north and south is largely unnecessary.

“With the surge in interest for infill and urban renewal-style development the Government is right to focus planning on our inner city and surrounds.”

Family First Senator-elect and HomesteadHomes managing director Bob Day said few people who bought houses on the urban fringe worked in the CBD.

He challenged figures in the Government studies showing it was more expensive to live in outer suburbs.

“It is infinitely cheaper to build brand new infrastructure on the fringe than try to retrofit and upgrade existing infrastructure in the inner suburbs,” he said.

Mr Day insisted urban sprawl was also better for the environment than infill.

Independent Upper House MP John Darley said he planned to introduce new legislation to ensure “secret land deals will come to an end”.

He said the move was sparked by controversy over the Gillman land deal, in which the Government offloaded the land to Adelaide Capital Partners without a tender.

“Without having a clear process, the public will remain suspicious as to whether the Government is doing the right thing or if deals are being done under the table.” he said.

“As a former chief executive of the Lands Department which was responsible for the disposal of all surplus government land, I am astounded that this sale was finalised without going to tender, public auction or even holding an expression of interest.

“This is about taxpayers getting the best value for money for their assets.”
http://www.news.com.au/national/south-a ... 6822518530
Our state, our city, our future.

All views expressed on this forum are my own.

User avatar
ChillyPhilly
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:35 pm
Location: Adder-Laid, South Australia.
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 445 times
Contact:

Re: Housing Developments | Northern Suburbs

#741 Post by ChillyPhilly » Tue Jul 29, 2014 6:17 pm

The first stage of Buckland Park today got approval.

How how how how? So stupid. :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash:
$2 billion satellite city approved

THE State Government has approved the first stage of a proposed $2 billion satellite city north of Adelaide, but the developer is yet to set a start date for the project.
The Planning Department has this month given the go-ahead for Stage One of the Buckland Park development, which would include almost 600 houses, a display village, supermarket, specialty shops and parks.

Buckland Park is about 35km from the Adelaide CBD, just north of St Kilda.
However, a start date for construction remains unclear, as developer Walker Corporation says it will not start ground works until all approvals have been granted. This ­includes endorsement from Playford Council and the ­department for the upgrade of an intersection at Port Wakefield and Angle Vale roads, at Buckland Park.
In a statement, Walker Corporation said it welcomed the government’s decision to approve Stage One of the development, named Riverlea.
“We are working closely with (the department) and the Playford Council on critical ­elements of the project, including the intersection on Port Wakefield Rd,” it said. "Significant capital works, (such as) moving 600,000 tonnes of soil, must get underway before construction gets under way on Stage One.”

Planning Minister John Rau said the department would help streamline the project’s delivery.
Mr Rau said the government’s newly-created position of state co-ordinator general, held by James Hallion, could help move the project forward.
The state co-ordinator general aims to cut red tape on private developments valued at $3 million or more by working with developers to overcome issues such as planning, environment, council regulations and water.
Under Walker Corporation’s plans, about 12,000 houses would be built at Riverlea over the next 25 years, providing accommodation for 30,000 people.
The comments on AdelaideNow sum up the situation well.
Jason
A satellite city 35km north of Adelaide? What a horrible idea. The last thing we need is more urban sprawl, when there is a clear need for greater density and far better transport options in inner suburban Adelaide.
Fred
There is no mention of the flooding problem and how they are going to solve it. If you buy in there, make sure you have a boat to get to work.
- This is clear proof that local knowledge (quite simply, the knowledge of the locals) was ignored during the public participation process, and instead 'experts' allowed to dominate feedback to government and decision-makers.
Ricardas
This is insanity. Politicians elected to represent our interests are allowing this pandering to lazy uncreative developers. We'll see the urban sprawl get worse and worse - and our roads will get more and more choked up whilst the quality of life goes down the toilet. It is high time such developments are stopped, and focus is placed on redevelopment and new development within the existing boundaries of greater Adelaide, where there is plenty of room (e.g. Port Adelaide anyone?). The best way to grow quality infrastructure (including decent public transport) is by having sufficient revenue density.

We should be trying to enhance our lives, not diminish them.
Our state, our city, our future.

All views expressed on this forum are my own.

User avatar
[Shuz]
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2600
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:26 pm
Has thanked: 1104 times
Been thanked: 264 times

Re: Housing Developments | Northern Suburbs

#742 Post by [Shuz] » Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:12 am

Heaps disappointed with this outcome. Poor planning.
Any views and opinions expressed are of my own, and do not reflect the views or opinions of any organisation of which I have an affiliation with.

User avatar
ChillyPhilly
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:35 pm
Location: Adder-Laid, South Australia.
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 445 times
Contact:

Re: Housing Developments | Northern Suburbs

#743 Post by ChillyPhilly » Wed Jul 30, 2014 6:30 pm

[Shuz] wrote:Heaps disappointed with this outcome. Poor planning.
It's not planning at all. This kind of garbage is the antithesis of 'planning'.
Our state, our city, our future.

All views expressed on this forum are my own.

User avatar
PeFe
Legendary Member!
Posts: 935
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:47 am
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 121 times

Re: Housing Developments | Northern Suburbs

#744 Post by PeFe » Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:36 pm

This really is depressing news.....satellite city?...wtf.....its will be just another suburb.
Did the SA government really not have the guts to say no to shit like this?
A suburb with no jobs....
A suburb with no public transport (and why should taxpayers fork out hard earned dollars for public transport to this out-of-the-way-wasteland!)
A suburb that is only being developed because it exists just outside the metro area boundary......
Bogan Hunters Series 5......... filmed entirely in.......

User avatar
ChillyPhilly
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:35 pm
Location: Adder-Laid, South Australia.
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 445 times
Contact:

Re: Housing Developments | Northern Suburbs

#745 Post by ChillyPhilly » Thu Jul 31, 2014 1:24 am

$$$$$$$$$$$$. It talks, alas. Sick of it.
Our state, our city, our future.

All views expressed on this forum are my own.

Waewick
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:39 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: Housing Developments | Northern Suburbs

#746 Post by Waewick » Fri Aug 01, 2014 11:48 am

that is a disappointing outcome.

the State Government is going to have a serious challenge with unemployment out north.

User avatar
ChillyPhilly
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:35 pm
Location: Adder-Laid, South Australia.
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 445 times
Contact:

Re: Housing Developments | Northern Suburbs

#747 Post by ChillyPhilly » Thu Aug 07, 2014 2:40 am

It WILL be a ghetto and it WILL flood. I can pretty much 100% guarantee it.
Our state, our city, our future.

All views expressed on this forum are my own.

Goodsy
Legendary Member!
Posts: 949
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:39 am
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 160 times

Re: Housing Developments | Northern Suburbs

#748 Post by Goodsy » Thu Feb 19, 2015 7:42 pm

Does anyone know what's going on next to the White Horse Inn on Port Wakefield Road? there's a lot of land being cleared near there

crawf
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5417
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 181 times
Been thanked: 320 times

Re: Housing Developments | Northern Suburbs

#749 Post by crawf » Tue Aug 11, 2015 2:44 pm

Continued from here
http://sensational-adelaide.com/forum/v ... &start=345
ChillyPhilly wrote: Any development on the site of the salt pans would have significant negative impacts socially, economically and environmentally - it's just a bad idea.
It will be a bad idea, if it’s poorly planned, managed and implemented.

I understand your concerns; it will be one of the most complex developments ever undertaken in this state and will need some serious expertise and private funding due to the high salinity levels and flooding concerns. However in the longer term if planned right, it will have a big positive impact on the northern suburbs.
It will do nothing to reduce car dependence (in fact will increase it)
It would no doubt increase traffic in the area, that’s a given unfortunately with most new suburban developments. However, this is where our public transport network needs to lift its game significantly. For example, high frequency bus services could run down a duplicated Elder Smith Road and connect to an expanded Mawson Lakes Interchange OR a new spur line branching off the existing Gawler line and run along the middle of the Northern Connector (Perth style). Another development could be the overhaul of Dry Creek into a much more user friendly, high frequency station and TOD.
will be quintessentially disconnected from nearby existing urban areas and centres by being cut off in all directions by roads and railways; will not promote active and healthy living and modes of transport, in particular cycling and walking between from destinations; will have a net overall impact detrimental to nearby environment catchments and ecosystems (in particular the mangroves); will not carry much if any place value and will likely contribute to an existing oversupply of new housing.
This is true. Not all of the vacant coastal land (salt pans, bolivar etc) is going to be suitable for development; however the land closest to the city should be developed. This comes even clearer when you look at the plans for the Northern Connector, which will border a large slice of vacant land between Salisbury Highway and Port Wakefield Road. It will be waste to leave this prime land vacant.
The oversupply is not 'publicised': DPTI have said that many new dwellings in newer subdivisions are bought by interstate buyers who in turn rent the properties out. There's more reasons against building on the salt pans that I can think of, but the reasons here are enough for now. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.
How is that different to any other development in SA or anywhere in Australia?,
The only difference is these homes will be 10-20km from the city, and not 40km away. It’s also another reason why it’s crucial that this future project is well managed.

As much as we all dream of a denser and taller Adelaide CBD, the truth is there is always going to be strong demand for residential subdivisions. I would rather this area be developed, then see miles of new homes heading towards Kapunda.

The area could be transformed into a larger and improved version of Mawson Lakes... such as; high tech industries, commercial businesses, mixture of apartments and homes, recreational facilities, and frequent bus feeder services connecting to an electrified modern railway network OR a new spur line. It could also include a marina, canals, man-made lagoon for swimming and a strong emphasis on protecting the coastal environment. These are just some of ideas of how this windswept eyesore could be developed over the next coming decades. It would also be good if the visually intrusive Torrens Island power station could be demolished and relocated far away from Adelaide, as well as Bolivar treatment plant which would free up more land for development.

It’s a long time vision, but I believe once the Northern Connector is complete there will be a stronger interest to develop this piece of real estate for both residential, commercial and environmental use.

In saying all this... in my own ideal world, I would like to one day see the airport relocated out this away (potentially Gilman) with a direct train express service to the city. Though that is dreaming.... :P

User avatar
metro
Legendary Member!
Posts: 964
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:11 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 371 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Housing Developments | Northern Suburbs

#750 Post by metro » Tue Aug 11, 2015 5:19 pm

crawf wrote:It would also be good if the visually intrusive Torrens Island power station could be demolished and relocated far away from Adelaide


I would rather see Torrens Island Power Station given heritage listing and preserved to educate people decades/centuries in the future on how the people in our time generated electricity. It was bad enough seeing the demolition of the Stanvac Oil Refinery, a huge 20th century industrial landmark of the Southern suburbs and a significant part of our state's history and a symbol of our dependence on oil.. now gone forever, to lose Torrens Island as well would be a disaster. :roll:
crawf wrote:as well as Bolivar treatment plant which would free up more land for development.
Certainly not the most attractive thing, and I sure wouldn't want to live next door to it, but it is kind of essential. Besides, there is a water treatment plant in Glenelg right next to million dollar beachfront property.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests