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
jimmy_2486
Legendary Member!
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: Glenelg-Marion Area

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

#76 Post by jimmy_2486 » Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:49 pm

P.K. wrote:Public transport exists already in virginia, it could be as simple as extending a bus route by 5 kilometres.
I looked up on the adelaide metro and I could not believe that the bus service going to virginia from salisbury only has 3 services a day and a measly 2 services a day to salisbury from virginia and on weekdays only!! Jee that buckland park development is gonna be a big hit if we extend that service out there. It will be just as good as mawson lakes like u said!! :wank:

Buckland Park will not be considered part of adelaide, the people will be considered country folk, it will be no different from mallala. We don't have the population to be putting suburbia out there. For our size, it will be isolated and considered a country ghost town just like mallala and virginia. If we had 3-4 million people then yeah it would make a nice suburb like west lakes and golden grove and mawson lakes. But come on, you have to travel through 20km worth of paddocks n crap to get there, its gonna have a great suburb feel isn't it?

I hope all goes well and I couldn't care less if it gets done or not. But it WONT be classed as a suburb, just some ghost community which is all that the opposing party's are saying. It will take YEARS, once we double or triple our population when it will be a top suburb (if it becomes a great suburb) like golden grove and west lakes.

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

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

#77 Post by Bulldozer » Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:07 pm

P.K., if you think it's going to be all peaches and roses then you should make yourself familiar with the situation down the other end of Adelaide at Sellicks Beach and Aldinga. Thousands of homes going up, but public transport, schools, childcare, doctors, police, etc. are essentially non-existant. There's no real industry or commerce in the area so most people have to drive into town for work. Those who can't are left to wallow in poverty.

It's a fair crock to compare this to West Lakes as well. West Lakes is much closer to the city.

urban
Legendary Member!
Posts: 581
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:59 am
Location: City of Unley
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

#78 Post by urban » Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:02 am

Who is paying for the flood mitigation?
P.K. wrote: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.
NO. The aging water, sewer, gas and electricity infrastructure still needs to be upgraded. Adelaide already has more infrastructure than it can afford to maintain. Building new infrastructure further out only makes the problem worse.
P.K. wrote: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.
Our public transport system is already struggling because of our low population density. Schools and medical centres whether public or private attract govt funding.
P.K. wrote: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.
Crime ridden Golden Grove, plastic West Lakes and the next Elizabeth make Adelaide a better place to live than Sydney of Melbourne?
P.K. wrote: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.
P.K. wrote:Adelaide can’t remain a sleepy hollow forever, if that’s what you want, then maybe you should move to a small country town.
Make up your mind P.K. If we keep building satellite country towns Adelaide will remain a sleepy hollow.
P.K. wrote: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!
They are all hidden subsidies. In NSW they have calculated these hidden subsidies and in some locations they are as high as $100,000 which they are now trying to pass on to the developers. If inner city brownfield sites were subsidised by $100,000 per block we would have affordable inner city housing without the social and environmental costs of urban sprawl.
P.K. wrote:Was everyone against the mawson lakes development?
The money spent on Mawson Lakes would have been much better spent on revitalising Elizabeth and Salisbury.
P.K. wrote: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 old stuff still needs to be repaired.
P.K. wrote: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 nothing wrong with people making money but if the govt is subsidising the profit they should get something desirable in return. New developments outside the urban growth boundary are not desirable.
P.K. wrote: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?
All of my comments above also apply to Virginia Grove Estate.

User avatar
jimmy_2486
Legendary Member!
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: Glenelg-Marion Area

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

#79 Post by jimmy_2486 » Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:18 am

Well said urban

Why the hell cant we completely flatten the inner north. The location is great but alot of the houses are crap. That would be a better option than buckland park..... And if your complaining about houses being expensive...then jeez just go look on realestate.com.au they have bucket loads of houses in the inner north/north east for bugger all. Our housing is cheap as, I dont know how people can complain how expensive adelaide is. I could find u bucket loads of houses between 2-300 gran in the inner metro. But im sure that people who are complaining are complaining because first home buyers cannot buy a 4 bedroom house on a half acre block in the most expensive areas for 100 gran. :wank:

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

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

#80 Post by P.K. » Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:11 pm

Wow, you guys have all the answers! Maybe you should be on the board for fixing the Murray too.
I had no idea this outback country town development would affect so few so greatly. Sounds like we don't need anymore houses anyway.

If they build it, I won't move there, I'll move to two wells, because it will only be a 10 minute drive to the shops, medical centre etc, hell I might even get a job there. Last thing I want to do is live in plastic west lakes, crime ridden golden grove or up themselves unley. Maybe I should build a subdivision out there seeing the the government will subsidise it!

You clowns probably think that two wells is in the flinders ranges.

Will
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5586
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 900 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

#81 Post by Will » Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:37 pm

P.K. wrote:Wow, you guys have all the answers! Maybe you should be on the board for fixing the Murray too.
I had no idea this outback country town development would affect so few so greatly. Sounds like we don't need anymore houses anyway.

If they build it, I won't move there, I'll move to two wells, because it will only be a 10 minute drive to the shops, medical centre etc, hell I might even get a job there. Last thing I want to do is live in plastic west lakes, crime ridden golden grove or up themselves unley. Maybe I should build a subdivision out there seeing the the government will subsidise it!

You clowns probably think that two wells is in the flinders ranges.
From your extreme arrogance, it appears that you are the one who has all the answers!

crawf
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5428
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 329 times

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

#82 Post by crawf » Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:23 pm

clowns?

User avatar
jimmy_2486
Legendary Member!
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: Glenelg-Marion Area

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

#83 Post by jimmy_2486 » Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:24 pm

P.K. wrote:Wow, you guys have all the answers! Maybe you should be on the board for fixing the Murray too.
I had no idea this outback country town development would affect so few so greatly. Sounds like we don't need anymore houses anyway.

If they build it, I won't move there, I'll move to two wells, because it will only be a 10 minute drive to the shops, medical centre etc, hell I might even get a job there. Last thing I want to do is live in plastic west lakes, crime ridden golden grove or up themselves unley. Maybe I should build a subdivision out there seeing the the government will subsidise it!

You clowns probably think that two wells is in the flinders ranges.
Nah but I know that two wells is in woop woop country, right next door to woop woop country buckland park...hahah.

Hey the way were goin, we probably should make a sub-division in the flinders ranges, cos house prices there will be even cheaper over buckland park.....wow I just solved our housing affordability crisis everyone!!! We could extend the gawler/virginia line there too lol.

None of us really give a rats toss about this development. We just want to make sure it is treated like a separate country town, because ADELAIDE metro infrastructure spending is more needed upgrading what we have HERE and not extending it to another country town. When our population at least doubles or maybe even triples, THEN think about extending our infrastructure out there.

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

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

#84 Post by Bulldozer » Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:51 pm

P.K. wrote:Wow, you guys have all the answers! Maybe you should be on the board for fixing the Murray too.
...
You clowns probably think that two wells is in the flinders ranges.
Are you trolling or just an astroturfer for the Buckland Park developers?

User avatar
Norman
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5937
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:06 pm
Has thanked: 838 times
Been thanked: 1617 times

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

#85 Post by Norman » Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:53 pm

IMO infrastructure should always be improved & extended, no matter what.

User avatar
jimmy_2486
Legendary Member!
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: Glenelg-Marion Area

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

#86 Post by jimmy_2486 » Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:59 pm

normangerman wrote:IMO infrastructure should always be improved & extended, no matter what.
Yes it sure does, but to areas currently in our metro. Because there are a lot of suburbs still without decent services.... for example west beach gets 1 bus every half hour, which also goes through the airport and stops there for ages. However west beach is a inner metro suburb.

User avatar
Norman
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5937
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:06 pm
Has thanked: 838 times
Been thanked: 1617 times

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

#87 Post by Norman » Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:18 pm

Actually, West Beach has the 1/2 hourly 110, and anyway a 1/2 hour frequency with the J1 is nothing to be sneezed at.

User avatar
jimmy_2486
Legendary Member!
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: Glenelg-Marion Area

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

#88 Post by jimmy_2486 » Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:08 am

Yeah but still I believe that every area has the right to at least 10-15min frequency of their public transport. I have reles that live there and they hate their PT services.

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

#89 Post by Cruise » Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:43 am

Im planning on moving to buckland park when this project starts.

Try and stop me

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

Re: #Proposed: Buckland Park Development

#90 Post by P.K. » Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:29 am

Bulldozer wrote:
P.K. wrote:Wow, you guys have all the answers! Maybe you should be on the board for fixing the Murray too.
...
You clowns probably think that two wells is in the flinders ranges.
Are you trolling or just an astroturfer for the Buckland Park developers?
Neither, I wrote in and genuinely asked why people are so against this project especially when they have no intension of living out that way and the devellopment will not effect them in the slightest, then to knock the whole northern suburbs! been to Hackem lately? and I don't appreciate being called a wanker by some knobhead who lives in the eastern suburbs who thinks Adelaide finishes at Gepps Cross.

I was just stating facts when clearly some things other people were saying were not quite right. One that cracks me up is how far away everyone thinks this place is, is it a distance thing or a time thing? Funny it takes just as long to get the 30km from Virginia to Gepps Cross as it does from Gepps Cross to the city. Put another spin on that, people who live in Virginia and work at Gepps Cross will do less damage to the environment with car pollution for example, than people living in Gepps Cross and working in the city, who's the bad ones now.

Like I said before, if they can flood proof the area (to a degree), then I think its a good idea. Thats my opinion.

Why am I interested? I live out there.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests