Nathan wrote:Sure, not everyone wants or needs to live in an apartment (which, by the way, aren't "shoeboxes" in Adelaide), but we shouldn't be encouraging new developments that are barely removed from 1960's urban planning. Low density suburbs that require a car just to go buy a carton of milk, let alone get to work, are a bad outcome for lower income earners. A cheap home is no longer cheap when every one in the family over 16 has to run and own a car out of necessity. Never mind the quality of homes these project home builders build these days is poorly designed rubbish. There absolutely should be homes for people at that level of affordability, but that shouldn't be at the expense of quality, location and infrastructure.rev wrote:And where would you like people to live? Do you think everyone can afford to get a home loan as big as you can? Do you think everyone wants to live in a shoebox apartment?Nathan wrote:Yay. Another low density suburb by a project home builder anchored by a box shopping centre surrounded by car parking.
There's a market for these developments, just like there's a growing market for apartment living. This whole "omg more sprawl" bullshit is as bad if not worse then the parklands preservation muppets sooking.
Get over it already.
Well what do you suggest be done?
Where would you build thousands of homes for people to live in, for a growing population?
Show us how you would bring the cost of these new homes so they are as affordable as the new suburbs going up in the north.
How many homes do you think you can fit on the corner of Regency and Days roads?
How many homes do you think you can fit on the corner of Regency and Churchill roads?
Know of any large empty parcels of land in existing surburbia?
The only other site identified for housing that I can think of is the former salt pans. But that site isn't going to be ready for a couple decades. What happens in the mean time? People sleep in their cars?
What should be done, should existing suburbs be bulldozed, and divided up into smaller and smaller blocks? Prices will still be high. Because someone has to purchase those homes first before bulldozing them, and then redo the drainage and other utilities to realign streets as there'll be smaller blocks and the purpose is to cram as many new homes in as possible so as to not keep expanding the metro area...and they'd want to at least make their money back.
Government you say? We all pay for that then through higher taxes, levies and fees.
And what's wrong with the quality of homes being built? They might not be to yours or my taste, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them.
For some people, it's a matter of what they can afford, and living realistically within their means.
ps, you should probably pay attention to the majority of cars on our road. They are small cars. There's your number one reason why our car industry is going. Because people are buying smaller and smaller cars imported from overseas, and our local makes haven't kept up with the more appealing smaller cars coming in with their own small cars(rebadged pieces of crap mostly).
Most people can't afford a house close to the city, and they cant afford a big petrol guzzling car. They therefore have smaller cars for commuting to and from work. It's actually not that expensive. I know quite a few people who live in new developments in the north who drive small cars like Toyota Yaris and Honda Jazz for that reason.