Sensational-Adelaide.com

PeFe wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:31 pm

[...]

The balls in your court SA Liberal government......I know they struggle with anything verging on "vision" relating to urban/transport issues but they could try googling Chatswood or St Leonards train stations in Sydney to see what is possible (Yes Chatswood would probably never happen in Adelaide but something of the scale of St Leonards could....)

I wouldn't compare any Sydney stations to what can be done at Kilkenny. First you need to see what the developer wants to do with this site then plan around that so it becomes an integral part of it. I would think the developer will talk to the government of the day and of course the local council. Grade separation is a great idea. The station should be lowered like Bowden. Even better if it is completely underground (like Bowden should have been) and have shops, offices, eateries etc., above and all after the OH line is electrified. If you are so keen on something like this you should contact the local MP or write a letter to the transport minister and get his feedback. Then I suggest we complain.

Cheers

Ho Really wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 15, 2020 11:05 am

I wouldn't compare any Sydney stations to what can be done at Kilkenny. First you need to see what the developer wants to do with this site then plan around that so it becomes an integral part of it. I would think the developer will talk to the government of the day and of course the local council.

Isn't it about time developments in Adelaide were "integrated"?

What if the developer says "we dont care about the train station...its got nothing to do with us!'

Like I said in my original post, lets get the developer to rebuild the train station in exchange for concessions on the development.
If the developer doesn't want to do this, get another one who does!

Time to stop "random" developments that don't interact with the surrounding landscape.

PeFe wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:31 pm

Isn't it about time developments in Adelaide were "integrated"?

What if the developer says "we dont care about the train station...its got nothing to do with us!'

Have you ever seen a residential development that is close to public transport, that doesn't have that close proximity used to market it's desirability to potential buyers?

And if the developer said the train station has nothing to do with them in regards to upgrading it, they would be 100% correct. It has nothing to do with them because they aren't the government, and it's a government problem.

Like I said in my original post, lets get the developer to rebuild the train station in exchange for concessions on the development.

So is ownership of the train station going to be transferred to the developers? If not, why should they pay for it?
Don't we pay taxes, fees, fines, etc etc etc, to a government, who is responsible for things such as public transport?
It's not a small side cost, it's a cost of millions of dollars, and if they were to grade separate, tens of millions..if you really expect a developer to pay for that, you're asking for too much.

If the developer doesn't want to do this, get another one who does!

Oh yeh, and whose going to pay the developer for the land? This isn't The Sopranos.

I'd love it if the train line was grade separated, would make travel through the area so much more efficient for vehicles.
To think we have Chief & Rosetta streets grade separated, but main arterial roads aren't. Couldn't be any more backwards in that regard.

I stumbled across this development in LA (Culver City) called Ivy Station. It focuses around the Culver City light rail station on the recently extended Expo Line.

https://www.ivystationculvercity.com/

This is on a site of 20,000m2. Something of a smaller scale could be implemented at the Marion Road tram crossing (6,000m2) or a larger scale at the currently empty triangle between Flinders Drive, South and South Roads (30,000m2).

If this can work in LA it can work here.

*double post deleted*

rev wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:56 am

Like I said in my original post, lets get the developer to rebuild the train station in exchange for concessions on the development.

So is ownership of the train station going to be transferred to the developers? If not, why should they pay for it?
Don't we pay taxes, fees, fines, etc etc etc, to a government, who is responsible for things such as public transport?
It's not a small side cost, it's a cost of millions of dollars, and if they were to grade separate, tens of millions..if you really expect a developer to pay for that, you're asking for too much.

This is also a point that needs to be brought up every time there are people crying out that more sprawl is needed to help with housing affordability. It rarely actually makes housing cost less, just offsets costs to the government.

Nort wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 18, 2020 9:30 am

rev wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:56 am

Like I said in my original post, lets get the developer to rebuild the train station in exchange for concessions on the development.

So is ownership of the train station going to be transferred to the developers? If not, why should they pay for it?
Don't we pay taxes, fees, fines, etc etc etc, to a government, who is responsible for things such as public transport?
It's not a small side cost, it's a cost of millions of dollars, and if they were to grade separate, tens of millions..if you really expect a developer to pay for that, you're asking for too much.

This is also a point that needs to be brought up every time there are people crying out that more sprawl is needed to help with housing affordability. It rarely actually makes housing cost less, just offsets costs to the government.

My comment has nothing to do with sprawl, but since you bring it up, what makes you think (or any anti sprawllers) that public money should only be spent on PT for their inner suburbs because they want to and/or can afford to live there, and not elsewhere because it costs "more"??

You sure about affordability re sprawl?
Because reality says otherwise, and so does the fact people continue to flock to outlying suburbs particularly new suburbs/developments because thats all they can afford, and even then for many they still only just scrape by financially.

rev wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 18, 2020 11:09 am

Nort wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 18, 2020 9:30 am

rev wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:56 am

So is ownership of the train station going to be transferred to the developers? If not, why should they pay for it?
Don't we pay taxes, fees, fines, etc etc etc, to a government, who is responsible for things such as public transport?
It's not a small side cost, it's a cost of millions of dollars, and if they were to grade separate, tens of millions..if you really expect a developer to pay for that, you're asking for too much.

This is also a point that needs to be brought up every time there are people crying out that more sprawl is needed to help with housing affordability. It rarely actually makes housing cost less, just offsets costs to the government.

My comment has nothing to do with sprawl, but since you bring it up, what makes you think (or any anti sprawllers) that public money should only be spent on PT for their inner suburbs because they want to and/or can afford to live there, and not elsewhere because it costs "more"??

You sure about affordability re sprawl?
Because reality says otherwise, and so does the fact people continue to flock to outlying suburbs particularly new suburbs/developments because thats all they can afford, and even then for many they still only just scrape by financially.

Where exactly did I say that money should only be spent on inner city PT?

I think all of Metropolitan Adelaide should have good quality public transport and road infrastructure, which is why I think it should be included in the plans right from day one. When those costs are included right from the start as something the government will have to cover then it also encourages more support for infill and TOD's.

New X Convenience is being constructed near the Gepps Cross HQ

Three level apartment proposal for West Lakes: https://rossdalehomes.com.au/lakeviewap ... partments/

The new Mobil X Convenience at Greenacres appears to be close to opening, majority of the construction is complete, I am predicting it will open some time in April.

I noticed a couple of developments in construction on King William St Kent Town this morning. One on northern side (hills end) is almost complete (3-4 storey building) and one on southern side just starting (city end).

Also, the townhouses in Rundle / Little Grenfell coming along nicely. Kent Town really starting to have a great vibe, and with the 2 new North Tce towers in the background it really feels "inner city". With such great history, this suburb is a real gem.

rev wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:56 am

So is ownership of the train station going to be transferred to the developers? If not, why should they pay for it?
Don't we pay taxes, fees, fines, etc etc etc, to a government, who is responsible for things such as public transport?
It's not a small side cost, it's a cost of millions of dollars, and if they were to grade separate, tens of millions..if you really expect a developer to pay for that, you're asking for too much.

They should pay for it because it improves their property's value. If they don't want to contribute to the station redevelopment, then don't redevelop the station. Their property won't be worth as much, but they would be making the choice to forgo increased property values.

1NEEDS2POST wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 11, 2020 3:30 am

rev wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:56 am

So is ownership of the train station going to be transferred to the developers? If not, why should they pay for it?
Don't we pay taxes, fees, fines, etc etc etc, to a government, who is responsible for things such as public transport?
It's not a small side cost, it's a cost of millions of dollars, and if they were to grade separate, tens of millions..if you really expect a developer to pay for that, you're asking for too much.

They should pay for it because it improves their property's value. If they don't want to contribute to the station redevelopment, then don't redevelop the station. Their property won't be worth as much, but they would be making the choice to forgo increased property values.

The station should be redeveloped by the government regardless as part of am upgrade of the whole network to bring it into the 21st century.

State Government agreed with the Onkaparinga Council today to fund construction the Witton Bluff Base Trail after years of trying.

GREAT NEWS FOR THE SOUTH!
Exciting news that state funding has been announced to match City of Onkaparinga’s funding and commitment to develop the Witton Bluff Base Trail!
This nearly 1.4km trail will be built around the base of Witton Bluff connecting the Christies Beach and Port Noarlunga foreshores.
Council has been working with the local community and all tiers of government to deliver this project for many years.
Thank you and congratulations to everyone involved!
We look forward to working with the state government to make this iconic project a reality.