News & Discussion: Adelaide Urban Sprawl & Density

All other development discussion.
Message
Author
User avatar
rhino
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2910
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Nairne
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 105 times

#31 Post by rhino » Thu May 10, 2007 1:56 pm

champsman wrote: I disagree with the notion that they planned it badly.
I don't think they planned it badly, especially from their point of view. They planned it to accommodate a suburb of professionals who would generally be using cars, and those people have been attracted to the suburb. In this day and age, however, suburbs should be planned with Public Transport in mind (thinking ahead they should be planned with Mass Rapid Transport in mind), and the town centre of Mawson Lakes is a case in point.
cheers,
Rhino

User avatar
AG
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 1890
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 9:44 am
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 20 times

#32 Post by AG » Thu May 10, 2007 8:53 pm

I think the situation with the train station and the planning of Mawson Lakes has more to do with the lack of foresight rather than pure poor planning. Mawson Lakes wasn't originally intended to be served by a train station, so the suburb wasn't really planned with the use of the train line in mind. Only years after the suburb began developing did the Government put forward the plan to build the train station. The road link between Salisbury Highway and Main Street was never part of the original plan either.

crawf
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5415
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 176 times
Been thanked: 320 times

#33 Post by crawf » Thu May 10, 2007 9:03 pm

AtD wrote:Mawson Lakes is a poor example of urban planning simply because it turns its back on the train line while favouring Main North Road. The central area should have been built around the interchange, rather than it being in an empty field. The same thing, of course, could have been said for the UniSA campus which has been there for decades longer than the suburb.
Agreed. Mawson Lakes looks like one giant maze from the UBD.

Though even with a trainline, One of my friends in Mawson Lakes avoids the train service and uses the bus instead, mainly because of safety concerns.

But I've used the Gawler Line before and I don't think its as bad as what people claim it to be, though I guess its different when your female.

User avatar
AtD
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Sydney
Been thanked: 1 time

#34 Post by AtD » Thu May 10, 2007 9:59 pm

Trains aren't that bad anymore. All trains leaving Adelaide after 7.00pm must have a security contractor on board.

User avatar
AG
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 1890
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 9:44 am
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 20 times

#35 Post by AG » Thu May 10, 2007 11:26 pm

The pains of a growing population
May 08, 2007 02:15am
Article from: Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
IT IS the eternal conundrum for town planners. How to balance the sprawl of residential development at the outer suburban fringe with the provision of adequate community services?

It is perhaps the key question at tomorrow's population conference, Planning 4 Growth, in Adelaide.

Outer suburban councils like Onkaparinga, Playford, Salisbury and Mount Barker are already struggling with the growing pains of residential expansion.

It is a question with significant relevance for South Australia and, particularly, greater Adelaide.

The State Government has already set a population target of two million by the year 2050 - a jump of nearly 500,000 people.

Where will these people live?

On the fringes, with limited infrastructure, or will Adelaide's inner suburban areas make way for medium density housing utilising existing schools, health centres, public transport, water, sewerage, gas and electricity services?

Every viable and dynamic community depends on a nucleus of young families.

Ironically, young families who move to live in fringe suburbs desperately need health, education, child minding services and public transport.

Yet the extension of under-utilised bus services, the construction and staffing of health centres, kindergartens and schools is an enormous drain on Government resources.

Government population targets are commendable. But they must be matched by infrastructure planning which avoids the creation of ghettos of people isolated and disadvantaged by the tyranny of distance.

crawf
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5415
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 176 times
Been thanked: 320 times

#36 Post by crawf » Thu May 10, 2007 11:32 pm

Didn't you post this on the first page?

Does anyone know how many lanes the Mawson Connector will have.

User avatar
AG
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 1890
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 9:44 am
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 20 times

#37 Post by AG » Thu May 17, 2007 8:00 am

City sprawl must stop
RHIANNON HOYLE, REAL ESTATE EDITOR
May 17, 2007 02:15am
Article from: Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
DENSITY targets for Adelaide are essential "and not just those that will fit public preference", urban design expert Richard Marshall has warned.

In Adelaide to speak at today's Property Council of Australia luncheon, the Sydney-based global director of urban design for Woods Bagot said our city's design was "simply unsustainable" and was an issue that needed to be addressed at all levels of government, namely at a federal level. It was important for the State Government to release a 50-year vision for the city, something he said was severely lacking.

"We need to understand we are no longer living in the boom period cities of the 50s and 60s - this is a very different time with different needs," he said yesterday.

"Urban densities need to be addressed, and not just those that will fit with public preference. There tends to be only this short-term outlook, and I think a lot of that has to do with politics."

While the notion of increased density for Adelaide is often debated among government and industry groups, figures show the city has a population density of about 615 per square kilometre. Sydney has 1600/sq km, Melbourne has 1500/sq km, New York City, 1760/sq m and London, 4172/sq km.

"And Adelaide is half the size of London," he noted.

Mr Marshall said it was also important to define uses for the CBD, saying its prime uses should simply be office, retail and residential.

"You have all this stuff in the CBD that you don't need. "Why do we need car showrooms in the CBD," he asked. While he said it was time governments stepped up to the plate and began addressing the issue of sustainable urban design, he insisted some of that burden must fall on the development and planning industry.

"Australia is very immature in its debate on urban design, and this is something that really needs to be pushed by the professions," Mr Marshall said.

User avatar
Norman
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5644
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:06 pm
Has thanked: 759 times
Been thanked: 1353 times

#38 Post by Norman » Thu May 17, 2007 1:04 pm

Yes, Adelaide is a huge city, but not density or population wise. They need more high-rises in places like Ashford, Goodwood, Prospect, Port Adelaide, Glenelg's outer suburbs... just to beef up the skyline.

Redback20
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:48 pm
Location: Adelaide southern suburbs

#39 Post by Redback20 » Thu May 17, 2007 1:04 pm

Plenty of good points in there esp about the land use in the CBD, altho a bit harsh to compare our planning as immature.... london had run out of room literally centuries before europeans even set foot here. And I bet they wish they'd kept Col Light...

But it's a good point about size, incidentally I'd argue metro Adelaide is actually bigger than greater london, something wikipedia backs up (1800sq kms to 1500).
My sister lives right on the edge of gtr london near heathrow and its 12 miles/18kms to the city. That's barely halfway to noarlunga. It does illustrate the point about our low density for sure.

urban
Legendary Member!
Posts: 574
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:59 am
Location: City of Unley
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 14 times

#40 Post by urban » Thu May 17, 2007 2:13 pm

I heard a statistic several years ago that metropolitan Adelaide is the same size as singapore with 1/10th the population.

urban
Legendary Member!
Posts: 574
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:59 am
Location: City of Unley
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 14 times

#41 Post by urban » Thu May 17, 2007 2:28 pm

Just checked Wikipedia and I was wrong about the area but right about the relative densities. Singapores density for the entire country (not just the city) is 6,369/km2 more than 10x our 615/km2.

Imagine Adelaide in an area 13km x 13km which I would guess to be Portrush Rd to Tapleys Hill Rd and Cross Rd to Grand Junction Rd.

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

#42 Post by Cruise » Thu May 17, 2007 3:37 pm

^^^^^ If it was like that you could walk everyware!!!

User avatar
shuza
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 3:13 pm

#43 Post by shuza » Thu May 17, 2007 4:30 pm

If we are talking land areas of cities, what frustrates me is the the failure of there not being a common standard of what defines as the purely urban area of a city.

One method that I would propose is to calculate the continous build-up of urban sprawl, without 'gaps' for areas to be classified urban. In Adelaide's instance (AFAIK) , this couldn't be measured well, as Noarlunga district is actually separated geographically from the main Adelaide urban continousity. This takes away as many as 250,000 inhabitants from Adelaide's population, and also reduces Adelaide's 'size', given that the majority of Noarlungans work in Adelaide. So its a bit tricky to work that out.

crawf
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5415
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 176 times
Been thanked: 320 times

#44 Post by crawf » Thu May 17, 2007 5:06 pm

He missed one a major point, our CBD has a large land mass. Most of those caryards and motoring businesses are out of the main CBD core, though it would be nice to see those businesses moved out into the suburbs and low/mid/high rise apartments take their places.

Really the only way, we are going to have more high density residential apartments in the CBD or in the inner suburbs is making them affordable to the average joe and making the CBD attractive place to live, work and play also improving the street scape of the city (some streets in our city are a disgrace).

I'm sure if most of those city apartments were cheaper, most people would choose the CBD to live than way out in the suburbs. As everything is in the city - shops, offices, restaurants/cafes, hotels, entertainment, attractions, hospitals, universities, tafe, schools, services, parklands/gardens and better public transport etc...

I'm not talking about low low income earners, I'm just talking about the normal South Australian.

User avatar
rhino
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2910
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Nairne
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 105 times

#45 Post by rhino » Fri May 18, 2007 7:54 am

crawf wrote: I'm sure if most of those city apartments were cheaper, most people would choose the CBD to live than way out in the suburbs. As everything is in the city - shops, offices, restaurants/cafes, hotels, entertainment, attractions, hospitals, universities, tafe, schools, services, parklands/gardens and better public transport etc....
No offense, but you've got a lot to learn, Crawf.

People like to have a bit of space around them, have friends over and cook them a barbecue on their patio, have a swim in their pool, work on their car in their own garage (with it's own pit), make some furniture in their own workshop in the backyard, full of their own tools and machinery, eat the fruit they've grown on their trees around the edge of the back garden, or serve up the Sunday Roast with home-grown vegies, play a game of backyard cricket with the kids or help them build a treehouse, keep a few chooks, even gardening itself is one of this country's most popular hobbies.

There are definately people to whom the CBD lifestyle is attractive, but I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say most people. Do you think Europeans who move to Australia come so that they can live in an apartment, or so that they can have their own bit of land to do with what they wish? Personally, I am not a low income earner, but even the suburbs (where I grew up) didn't have enough room for me, and now I am surrounded by cattle and grapes (neither of which are mine). Would I give this up to live in the CBD? No way!
cheers,
Rhino

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests