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.
Message
Author
User avatar
joshzxzx
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 1:17 pm
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: 2500 new homes for Gawler East

#166 Post by joshzxzx » Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:25 am

My question is why does the government not try to persuade Delfin to buy the clipsal site
which is on sale and build a high density TOD as they have been suggesting lately.
Time for urban sprawl should stop and high density around the CBD should be promoted


I completely agree with the above quote, lets build higher dinsity building near public transport!

This gov has got to stop talking shit and actually do some work!
South Australia the Festival State

User avatar
Queen Anne
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 3:32 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: 2500 new homes for Gawler East

#167 Post by Queen Anne » Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:45 am

I don't really understand the gov's intentions very well. When they announced the TODS, they spoke of the success of Portland, Oregon, where they got their inspiration for the idea. But as far as I know, Portland has an "urban growth boundary" as part of what they call their "Smart Growth Policy". I don't really understand how, with our small population, we can make a success out of increasing urban density, while also releasing new land for housing development.

In addition, it is hypocritical to announce the TODS as part of an environmentally sustainable future, while at the same time actively promoting sprawl. Absolutely, we need lower cost housing options but the gov's decisions seem all over the place to me.

I agree with the last two posters.

User avatar
Shuz
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2539
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:48 pm
Location: Glandore

Re: 2500 new homes for Gawler East

#168 Post by Shuz » Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:23 pm

I too agree with the last few comments - but is it at all possible, that maybe they are encouraging growth around Gawler to make it more independent from Adelaide - treated as its own township, rather than an outer suburb of Adelaide?

User avatar
omada
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Eden Hills
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: 2500 new homes for Gawler East

#169 Post by omada » Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:40 pm

If this development is similar to the high density development in Mawson Lakes, then it ain't so bad, but if it is full of large single story pastiche type housing with no eaves, no insulation etc etc (ie the housing that characterises most of Adelaide) - then it will represent a lost opportunity, and a loss of decent arable land.

User avatar
No Clever Alias
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Adelaide

Re: 2500 new homes for Gawler East

#170 Post by No Clever Alias » Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:44 pm

Queen Anne wrote:I don't really understand the gov's intentions very well. When they announced the TODS, they spoke of the success of Portland, Oregon, where they got their inspiration for the idea. But as far as I know, Portland has an "urban growth boundary" as part of what they call their "Smart Growth Policy". I don't really understand how, with our small population, we can make a success out of increasing urban density, while also releasing new land for housing development.

In addition, it is hypocritical to announce the TODS as part of an environmentally sustainable future, while at the same time actively promoting sprawl. Absolutely, we need lower cost housing options but the gov's decisions seem all over the place to me.

I agree with the last two posters.
View the TOD proposal as a convenient distraction from the real agenda of the Planning Review... developers asked for, lobbied and are getting a rolling 25 year supply of greenfield land. Every year more land needs to be added to the urban area to keep that supply at 25 years! With that occurring...
There are two mistakes one can make along the road to truth - not going all the way, and not starting. Buddha

crawf
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5427
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 187 times
Been thanked: 328 times

Re: 2500 new homes for Gawler East

#171 Post by crawf » Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:20 pm

Not everyone wants to live in the CBD or inner suburbs, enough said.

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

Re: 2500 new homes for Gawler East

#172 Post by AtD » Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:58 pm

crawf wrote:Not everyone wants to live in the CBD or inner suburbs, enough said.
Everyone wants total tax cuts, too. Doesn't make it a good idea.

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

Re: 2500 new homes for Gawler East

#173 Post by Cruise » Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:19 pm

ozisnowman wrote:ENVIROMENTAL VANDALISM AND UNSUSTAINABILITY come to mind about this announcement

My question is why does the government not try to persuade Delfin to buy the clipsal site
which is on sale and build a high density TOD as they have been suggesting lately.
Time for urban sprawl should stop and high density around the CBD should be promoted
Blah, blah, blah

The government should be doing all it can to encourage high density developments, that said some people will perfer a house, it's a lifestyle choice really. some like living near the city, some don't. just like how some people like dogs and others like cats better.

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

Re: 2500 new homes for Gawler East

#174 Post by AtD » Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:47 pm

Cruise wrote:Blah, blah, blah

The government should be doing all it can to encourage high density developments, that said some people will perfer a house, it's a lifestyle choice really. some like living near the city, some don't. just like how some people like dogs and others like cats better.
The 'choice' argument doesn't hold, because sprawl is taxpayer funded.

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

Re: 2500 new homes for Gawler East

#175 Post by Cruise » Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:54 pm

AtD wrote:
Cruise wrote:Blah, blah, blah

The government should be doing all it can to encourage high density developments, that said some people will perfer a house, it's a lifestyle choice really. some like living near the city, some don't. just like how some people like dogs and others like cats better.
The 'choice' argument doesn't hold, because sprawl is taxpayer funded.
hospitals are taxpayer funded, public transport is taxpayer funded, schools are taxpayer funded. Whats your point?

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

Re: 2500 new homes for Gawler East

#176 Post by AtD » Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:07 pm

Everything you mentioned is a social good. Sprawl is a social cost.

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

Re: 2500 new homes for Gawler East

#177 Post by Cruise » Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:08 pm

housing people is bad?

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: 2500 new homes for Gawler East

#178 Post by urban » Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:42 pm

Providing housing a long way from employment, services, shops and social networks in a manner that requires them to do a lot of travelling by the most expensive means of transport is bad. Urban sprawl is economically, environmentally and socially unsustainable. Our state is not rich enough to sustain expensive urban sprawl.

You talk about these developments as if they were filled with idyllic 1/4 acre blocks filled with trees and gardens for children to play in. In reality the vast majority will have the house taking up most of the block with the only usable outdoor space a 3x3 courtyard that will be paved and covered with a pergola. The houses will have less acoustic privacy than an apartment.

We have a serious housing problem in this state. To survive and thrive economically we must develop a more compact and efficient city, but we don't have the housing choices available to enable us to do this. I agree with you Cruise that families need safe space for children to play outside and that this is not provided by traditional apartment buildings. Townhouses can provide this to an extent but it is not much more efficient than freestanding houses. The govt needs to spend some serious research money to develop housing for the future.

Some housing co-operatives have experimented with shared outdoor space but these are one off projects with no tracking of their effectiveness. Le Corbusier experimented in the middle of last century with huge self-contained apartment blocks with their own shops, childcare, rooftop recreational areas etc but these only worked where the owners were very wealthy and could afford very large Strata fees.

User avatar
Queen Anne
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 3:32 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: 2500 new homes for Gawler East

#179 Post by Queen Anne » Sat Jul 12, 2008 1:58 pm

No Clever Alias wrote:
Queen Anne wrote:I don't really understand the gov's intentions very well. When they announced the TODS, they spoke of the success of Portland, Oregon, where they got their inspiration for the idea. But as far as I know, Portland has an "urban growth boundary" as part of what they call their "Smart Growth Policy". I don't really understand how, with our small population, we can make a success out of increasing urban density, while also releasing new land for housing development.

In addition, it is hypocritical to announce the TODS as part of an environmentally sustainable future, while at the same time actively promoting sprawl. Absolutely, we need lower cost housing options but the gov's decisions seem all over the place to me.

I agree with the last two posters.
View the TOD proposal as a convenient distraction from the real agenda of the Planning Review... developers asked for, lobbied and are getting a rolling 25 year supply of greenfield land. Every year more land needs to be added to the urban area to keep that supply at 25 years! With that occurring...
Hi No Clever Alias. Am I right that you are the urban planner who is going to leave Adelaide, due to frustration? If so, it sounds like it's going to be Adelaide's loss :( Apologies if I have the wrong person.

If I may ask a slightly off topic question, do you think the TOD proposal is real? Can we rely on it being realised?

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

Re: 2500 new homes for Gawler East

#180 Post by Cruise » Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:24 pm

urban wrote: You talk about these developments as if they were filled with idyllic 1/4 acre blocks filled with trees and gardens for children to play in. In reality the vast majority will have the house taking up most of the block with the only usable outdoor space a 3x3 courtyard that will be paved and covered with a pergola. The houses will have less acoustic privacy than an apartment.

the government should stipulate that only 50% of the block may be taken up by the dwelling.

It annoys me to when houses take up the entire block, that just kills the point of owning a house really.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: metro and 7 guests