News & Discussion: Other Metropolitan Developments

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
rhino
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3096
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Nairne

Re: News & Discussion: Other Metropolitan Developments

#1726 Post by rhino » Mon Jan 20, 2025 1:58 pm

rev wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2025 1:29 pm
You can't push people away from one mode of transport, without providing an alternative that provides convenience.
^^This^^
cheers,
Rhino

User avatar
Nathan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3843
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:09 pm
Location: Bowden
Contact:

Re: News & Discussion: Other Metropolitan Developments

#1727 Post by Nathan » Mon Jan 20, 2025 2:12 pm

rev wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2025 1:29 pm
ChillyPhilly wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2025 1:07 pm
rev wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2025 12:58 pm


lol wow
I didn't hold back.
The problem imho isn't cars, the problem is a lack of public transport options for the majority.
We're building huge housing estates in the north, and most are nowhere near a train line.
You can't push people away from one mode of transport, without providing an alternative that provides convenience.
It's not just public transport, that's only one part of the puzzle. Having everyday shops and services within walking distance is also key to reducing car dependence, otherwise you get people catching the train home to then immediately hop in their car to go to the supermarket or pharmacy — they still need that car. Same goes for local third places, and activities and places to meet for kids/teenagers. These low density housing estates they keep planning on the city fringe are just residential enclaves that are just requiring every single person in the household over the age of 16 to have their own individual car, even if there's a token train station with a bus stop shelter tucked away at the furthest corner of the development.

Nort
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2323
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:08 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Other Metropolitan Developments

#1728 Post by Nort » Tue Jan 21, 2025 8:45 am

Nathan wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2025 2:12 pm
rev wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2025 1:29 pm
ChillyPhilly wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2025 1:07 pm


I didn't hold back.
The problem imho isn't cars, the problem is a lack of public transport options for the majority.
We're building huge housing estates in the north, and most are nowhere near a train line.
You can't push people away from one mode of transport, without providing an alternative that provides convenience.
It's not just public transport, that's only one part of the puzzle. Having everyday shops and services within walking distance is also key to reducing car dependence, otherwise you get people catching the train home to then immediately hop in their car to go to the supermarket or pharmacy — they still need that car. Same goes for local third places, and activities and places to meet for kids/teenagers. These low density housing estates they keep planning on the city fringe are just residential enclaves that are just requiring every single person in the household over the age of 16 to have their own individual car, even if there's a token train station with a bus stop shelter tucked away at the furthest corner of the development.
Exactly. Train line should go into the center of the town, right where the shops and other services are. Dense housing around that, and then more spread out stuff.

User avatar
ChillyPhilly
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2830
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:35 pm
Location: Kaurna Land.
Contact:

Re: News & Discussion: Other Metropolitan Developments

#1729 Post by ChillyPhilly » Wed Jan 22, 2025 9:45 pm

Our state, our city, our future.

All views expressed on this forum are my own.

Prodical
Legendary Member!
Posts: 639
Joined: Sun May 15, 2016 5:10 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Other Metropolitan Developments

#1730 Post by Prodical » Sun Jan 26, 2025 5:08 pm

The apartments at Mile End this morning - looks like the final height.
Attachments
Mile.jpg

SBD
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2738
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Location: Blakeview

Re: News & Discussion: Other Metropolitan Developments

#1731 Post by SBD » Wed Jan 29, 2025 9:09 am

Nort wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2025 8:45 am
Nathan wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2025 2:12 pm
rev wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2025 1:29 pm


The problem imho isn't cars, the problem is a lack of public transport options for the majority.
We're building huge housing estates in the north, and most are nowhere near a train line.
You can't push people away from one mode of transport, without providing an alternative that provides convenience.
It's not just public transport, that's only one part of the puzzle. Having everyday shops and services within walking distance is also key to reducing car dependence, otherwise you get people catching the train home to then immediately hop in their car to go to the supermarket or pharmacy — they still need that car. Same goes for local third places, and activities and places to meet for kids/teenagers. These low density housing estates they keep planning on the city fringe are just residential enclaves that are just requiring every single person in the household over the age of 16 to have their own individual car, even if there's a token train station with a bus stop shelter tucked away at the furthest corner of the development.
Exactly. Train line should go into the center of the town, right where the shops and other services are. Dense housing around that, and then more spread out stuff.
Last week's announcement about the next stage of Playford Alive at Munno Para is filling in the land near the railway line. It's been vacant for a decade with one row of townhouses part-way along the street to the railway station. Once it's complete, the station will be in the middle of residential space, as the east side of the railway was developed in the 1970s.

Cryptic
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:28 am

Re: News & Discussion: Other Metropolitan Developments

#1732 Post by Cryptic » Wed Jan 29, 2025 10:02 am

SBD wrote:
Wed Jan 29, 2025 9:09 am
Nort wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2025 8:45 am
Nathan wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2025 2:12 pm


It's not just public transport, that's only one part of the puzzle. Having everyday shops and services within walking distance is also key to reducing car dependence, otherwise you get people catching the train home to then immediately hop in their car to go to the supermarket or pharmacy — they still need that car. Same goes for local third places, and activities and places to meet for kids/teenagers. These low density housing estates they keep planning on the city fringe are just residential enclaves that are just requiring every single person in the household over the age of 16 to have their own individual car, even if there's a token train station with a bus stop shelter tucked away at the furthest corner of the development.
Exactly. Train line should go into the center of the town, right where the shops and other services are. Dense housing around that, and then more spread out stuff.
Last week's announcement about the next stage of Playford Alive at Munno Para is filling in the land near the railway line. It's been vacant for a decade with one row of townhouses part-way along the street to the railway station. Once it's complete, the station will be in the middle of residential space, as the east side of the railway was developed in the 1970s.
I have noticed that a fair few of the new housing developments recently have been centred on rail lines which is good to see. Playford Alive expansion, the old oil refinery development at Lonsdale, former kaufland site in prospect etc. Thats in addition to Aldinga and Concordia which are being *investigated* for a potential rail extension, which while I wont hold my breath for an actual extension, its good to see its being thought about. All of these are much better than something like Riverlea.

User avatar
Howie
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4887
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:55 pm
Location: Adelaide
Contact:

Re: News & Discussion: Other Metropolitan Developments

#1733 Post by Howie » Thu Feb 13, 2025 7:13 pm

Image
Mitcham council accidentally published plans for a $300m hospital, 1000+ homes, 2,500 bed student accommodation at Flinders Uni site.

User avatar
Bobski
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:20 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Other Metropolitan Developments

#1734 Post by Bobski » Thu Feb 13, 2025 8:13 pm

Woah. :shock:

Mpol02
Legendary Member!
Posts: 617
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2020 4:06 am

Re: News & Discussion: Other Metropolitan Developments

#1735 Post by Mpol02 » Fri Feb 14, 2025 1:47 am

Building out and around prominent and populated areas like this is great. Yes yes yes

abc
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1341
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2022 10:35 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Other Metropolitan Developments

#1736 Post by abc » Fri Feb 14, 2025 1:50 am

Mpol02 wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2025 1:47 am
Building out and around prominent and populated areas like this is great. Yes yes yes
not at the expense of green space
tired of low IQ hacks

User avatar
ChillyPhilly
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2830
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:35 pm
Location: Kaurna Land.
Contact:

Re: News & Discussion: Other Metropolitan Developments

#1737 Post by ChillyPhilly » Fri Feb 14, 2025 9:07 am

Excellent to see.

A big boon for this would be improving pedestrian access between Flinders Station and the Medical Centre. The current path is narrow and not overly disability-friendly.
Our state, our city, our future.

All views expressed on this forum are my own.

Patrick_27
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2614
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:41 pm
Location: Adelaide CBD, SA

Re: News & Discussion: Other Metropolitan Developments

#1738 Post by Patrick_27 » Fri Feb 14, 2025 10:53 am

As it should be. Personally, I'd have preferred to see the government invest in an entirely new hospitalty at Tonsley when that site first became available and Flinders University takeover the current FMC site for a new campus. My only concern with building up around this space, and I've expressed this before is the lack of consideration for a potential extension to the Flinders Line beyond to Flagstaff Hill/Happy Valley.

User avatar
PeFe
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:47 am

Re: News & Discussion: Other Metropolitan Developments

#1739 Post by PeFe » Fri Feb 14, 2025 4:02 pm

Patrick_27 wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2025 10:53 am
As it should be. Personally, I'd have preferred to see the government invest in an entirely new hospitalty at Tonsley when that site first became available and Flinders University takeover the current FMC site for a new campus. My only concern with building up around this space, and I've expressed this before is the lack of consideration for a potential extension to the Flinders Line beyond to Flagstaff Hill/Happy Valley.
Sorry but Aberfoyle Park and Flagstaff Hill do not deserve a train service.

A quick search on the internet and....

Aberfoyle Park......11,234 people.....1920 people per square kilometre

Flagstaff Hill.......10,184 people.......1258 per square kilometre

I think the transport standard is something like 5000 per square kilometre justifies a tram 10,000 per square kilometre justifies a metro/heavy rail service.

And the chances in the future these suburbs will densify.......zero.

Its a pity the Flinders train didn't reach the university.....an obvious huge trip generator so I think a decent bus service is the best hope for Aberfoyle Park and Flagstaff Hill. Personally I would like see a bus that connects these suburbs to FMC and Marion Shopping Centre and Oaklands train station (covering the city, health and shopping destinations)

Back to the Flinders Health City proposal......a big thumbs up for me.

And mods I think this discussion should really be in the FMC thread....what do others think?

User avatar
[Shuz]
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3331
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:26 pm

Re: News & Discussion: Other Metropolitan Developments

#1740 Post by [Shuz] » Fri Feb 14, 2025 5:00 pm

Terrible proposal.

Not happy that it effectively blocks any likelihood of a train service extension to Happy Valley and beyond.
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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests