Sensational-Adelaide.com

I'll double check later but more the point, isn't this latest area in question part of the Gawler River floodplain?

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 07, 2018 11:35 am

I'll double check later but more the point, isn't this latest area in question part of the Gawler River floodplain?

Eden Two Wells is flood protected

The road and house plots are raised about 3m off the plain itself, so if you bought one of the huge lots your house will be on its own island

What an ugly development. Yuck.

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 07, 2018 12:17 pm

What an ugly development. Yuck.

Ehh.. If you don't like it then don't buy land in there. I just hope that whoever is in charge is looking to the future for the town center and things are being planned now to avoid what Gawler has turned in to

Norman wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:54 am

It should remain as farmland. There is enough space in the existing metro area to build more infill. And, no, I'm not talking dog boxes, I'm talking quality medium density. With our low growth rate, this should be our main focus for development.

But the point is Norman, that not everyone wants to live in such developments. Be it dog box apartments or medium density with no backyard.
I'm all for more apartment buildings, in the CBD, and selected areas around Adelaide, like Glenelg and the heart of Port Adelaide.
The "free market" hasn't seen a shift away from your typical house to medium or apartment living. We have a variety of options now, diversity, which is good.

There's plenty of room for farms outside of the greater Adelaide metro area boundary. Farms bigger then the market gardens.

I had not heard of the "Two Wells to Whyalla" economic corridor before.

I don't believe that it is possible to "kick start regional development" by promoting a residential development as "...capitalising on being 30 minutes from the city ...".

Having read reports on both the recent state electoral boundary redistribution and the present federal one, it is difficult for them to maintain four rural state electorates around the gulfs and two rural federal electorates in the state. These developments need to be further up the "corridor", supporting and supported by significant employment. Large visible employers I can think of include:

• New development at Whyalla steelworks
• new solar power stations at Port Augusta
• Sundrop Farms market garden at Port Augusta
• Port Pirie smelter
• Primo abattoir at Port Wakefield
• Balco and Bowmans Rail at Bowmans
• South Australian Livestock Exchange at Dublin

They all have staff who need to live somewhere and have families who need other services providing more employment.

rev wrote:

Norman wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:54 am

It should remain as farmland. There is enough space in the existing metro area to build more infill. And, no, I'm not talking dog boxes, I'm talking quality medium density. With our low growth rate, this should be our main focus for development.

But the point is Norman, that not everyone wants to live in such developments. Be it dog box apartments or medium density with no backyard.
I'm all for more apartment buildings, in the CBD, and selected areas around Adelaide, like Glenelg and the heart of Port Adelaide.
The "free market" hasn't seen a shift away from your typical house to medium or apartment living. We have a variety of options now, diversity, which is good.

There's plenty of room for farms outside of the greater Adelaide metro area boundary. Farms bigger then the market gardens.

I'm cool with low density housing, which we already have lots of anyway. My objection is mainly to the developer asking the taxpayer for our money to build the infrastructure they are required to fund themselves. If the demand for these houses is there like you said, they don't need a handout.

If the taxpayer is to support any housing, it is to promote more sustainable outcomes such as Bowden, Oaklands and other infill projects. They are not only more sustainable, but they also promote and support more variety in our housing stock.

Norman wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 07, 2018 5:40 pm

rev wrote:

Norman wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:54 am

It should remain as farmland. There is enough space in the existing metro area to build more infill. And, no, I'm not talking dog boxes, I'm talking quality medium density. With our low growth rate, this should be our main focus for development.

But the point is Norman, that not everyone wants to live in such developments. Be it dog box apartments or medium density with no backyard.
I'm all for more apartment buildings, in the CBD, and selected areas around Adelaide, like Glenelg and the heart of Port Adelaide.
The "free market" hasn't seen a shift away from your typical house to medium or apartment living. We have a variety of options now, diversity, which is good.

There's plenty of room for farms outside of the greater Adelaide metro area boundary. Farms bigger then the market gardens.

I'm cool with low density housing, which we already have lots of anyway. My objection is mainly to the developer asking the taxpayer for our money to build the infrastructure they are required to fund themselves. If the demand for these houses is there like you said, they don't need a handout.

If the taxpayer is to support any housing, it is to promote more sustainable outcomes such as Bowden, Oaklands and other infill projects. They are not only more sustainable, but they also promote and support more variety in our housing stock.

Personally I cant help but wonder what our cbd would look like, if we didn't have some higher density areas like Bowden and Mawson Lakes.
Clearly there is some demand for smaller apartment type dwellings. We've seen a bit of a little boom with that sort of development in the city, so if we had limited that outside the city, would that have translated into more high rise development in the city and an even more evolving skyline?..

rev wrote:

Norman wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 07, 2018 5:40 pm

rev wrote: But the point is Norman, that not everyone wants to live in such developments. Be it dog box apartments or medium density with no backyard.
I'm all for more apartment buildings, in the CBD, and selected areas around Adelaide, like Glenelg and the heart of Port Adelaide.
The "free market" hasn't seen a shift away from your typical house to medium or apartment living. We have a variety of options now, diversity, which is good.

There's plenty of room for farms outside of the greater Adelaide metro area boundary. Farms bigger then the market gardens.

I'm cool with low density housing, which we already have lots of anyway. My objection is mainly to the developer asking the taxpayer for our money to build the infrastructure they are required to fund themselves. If the demand for these houses is there like you said, they don't need a handout.

If the taxpayer is to support any housing, it is to promote more sustainable outcomes such as Bowden, Oaklands and other infill projects. They are not only more sustainable, but they also promote and support more variety in our housing stock.

Personally I cant help but wonder what our cbd would look like, if we didn't have some higher density areas like Bowden and Mawson Lakes.
Clearly there is some demand for smaller apartment type dwellings. We've seen a bit of a little boom with that sort of development in the city, so if we had limited that outside the city, would that have translated into more high rise development in the city and an even more evolving skyline?..

Doubtful, Bowden is a publicly funded development while Mawson Lakes had some help, the watered down reincarnation of the 1990 'Multi-fuction Polis' (MFP). The apartments that have gone up around the CBD are privately funded.

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:42 pm

Doubtful, Bowden is a publicly funded development while Mawson Lakes had some help, the watered down reincarnation of the 1990 'Multi-fuction Polis' (MFP). The apartments that have gone up around the CBD are privately funded.

But haven't they only started going up after the state government took over the approval process? If there was no mid rise zones outside of the CBD there would have been a greater influx of submissions in the CBD and perhaps the state government would have taken over much sooner

Blakes Crossing is nearly complete. According to a survey I filled out they are asking what should go on land opposite Aldi. Options suggested in survey is licensed restaurant/pub, Subway, Roast Chicken shops, Pizza, etc.

Eurostar wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:41 pm

Blakes Crossing is nearly complete. According to a survey I filled out they are asking what should go on land opposite Aldi. Options suggested in survey is licensed restaurant/pub, Subway, Roast Chicken shops, Pizza, etc.

With Chicken Home and Monica's Pizza at the western end of the main shopping centre, and a lunch stop bakery in the middle (and Subway at OTR not far away in Smithfield), Roast Chicken, Pizza and Subway seem like strange choices to want to put opposite Aldi as well. A tavern or another restaurant might make sense. I assume there is a future restaurant space where the land sales office is at present next door to Fasta Pasta too. There isn't a Chinese or any other east Asian shops in the immediate area. The closest are at Munno Para Shopping City (Red Dragon), Chef Lam (Yorketown Road) and Playford Alive (Queen Bee). I imagine that Magik Masala (Indian) would get more customers if it moved out of the little centre on California Avenue to a more visible location, but it seems to be busy enough where it is anyway.

I don't think Blakes Crossing is "nearly complete". I'm pretty sure it can go up to and beyond Medlow Road. Fairland (formerly RealtySA) have development rights on the paddocks east of Bentley Road/north of Blakeview Grove, too.

I remember an estate being advertised in the earlys noughties called Springvale , I don't know whether that was Golden Grove or Craigmore

Eurostar wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:01 am

I remember an estate being advertised in the earlys noughties called Springvale , I don't know whether that was Golden Grove or Craigmore

Springvale Gardens was an estate in Blakeview in the early-to-mid 1990s. It is immediately south of Blakes Crossing between Craigmore Road and Uley Road. Early ads said it was at Smithfield East as it was behind the Smithfield East Shell service station. My wife and I built on one of the last blocks in Stage 1 in 1991 (they were selling up to stage 4 or 5 by then).

Springvale Heights was a little earlier I think, and is around Springvale Drive in Blakeview on the north side of Craigmore Road, further uphill from Blakes Crossing. They were both developed by the land developer branch of Homestead Homes.

Buckland Park has been given a three-year extension.

Seriously. Just can it already.