It seems that once again, the driver for the choice of Concordia is not rational urban planning, but the good old property development industry. It's a lot easier to make money out of developing a broadacre site than mucking around with infill.
stumpjumper wrote:What is so wrong with infilling Elizabeth??
monotonehell wrote:Possibly the problem with infilling is that the land is held by disparate owners, meaning that any large scale infill would be at the mercy of those. Infill has been happening in some areas in this way, it's just a slow and organic process.
Prince George wrote:Now suppose the proposal was that Mcquarie group engage in some large scale urban infill program, how could that be made to work?
I'd also hazard a guess that much of Adelaide is conditioned against Elizabeth (in fact, the north as a whole) as a (potentially) desirable area. A new suburb with a new name and no existing preconceptions is a much easier sell, no matter how further north and ill-served by infrastructure it may be.
rhino wrote:It worked for the Urban Renewal of Mitchell Park, which resulted in medium density though still on Torrens Titled allotments, and the Govt have got a plan for urban renewal at Smithfield Plains and Davoren Park (the Playford North development). How are they working?
'Super town' will threaten Barossa
PLANS for an 18,000-home "super town" north of Adelaide threaten the heritage and character of the world-famous Barossa region, the local council claims.
Barossa Mayor Brian Hurn said the release of private plans earmarking Concordia for "large-scale sprawl-style" development "put the cart before the horse" and had been made public without the council's knowledge.
The plans, unveiled earlier this month by development company Urban Pacific, propose the construction of up to 18,000 homes, two train stations, schools and shops on a 2500 ha site on the outskirts of Gawler.
"The ad-hoc urban sprawl of Gawler would be a disastrous outcome for this visually sensitive area," Mr Hurn said.
"The negative impacts of sprawl cannot be overcome if the wrong areas are earmarked or the level of development is wrong.
"While council has endorsed further investigation into the suitability of Concordia as a growth area, any references to the scale of housing development and associated facilities are totally inappropriate at this stage.
"Planning for any level of development requires detailed attention to the regional and rural character and landscape and heritage amenity, before the extent of design and infrastructure is determined.
"Appropriate, modern urban planning principles also require a commitment to sustainable development."
Mr Hurn questioned why Urban Pacific's plans had been publicly released before there had been any consultation with the Barossa council or the community.
"We question a process that puts the cart before the horse. We hope there will be improved recognition for the role of local government so that the community can have greater confidence in relation to planning for future development," he said.
His comments come just a week after The Advertiser revealed the town of Gawler had raised alarm over State Government targets to increase the population of the Gawler and Barossa region by 139,000 over the next 30 years.
Planning and Urban Development Minister Paul Holloway is declining to comment on individual submissions to the Draft 30-year Plan for Greater Adelaide.
A final plan will be released once the Government has considered all submissions.
it's cheaper to just start fresh
The Barossa council are hell bent against anything which threatens their own interests.
stumpjumper wrote:The Barossa council are hell bent against anything which threatens their own interests.
Fabricator, call me an alarmist, but the entire state is being bulldozed by a conglomerate of the Property Council, private development and a compliant, hopelessly conflicted government. Read the documents (PC submission to 30 yr plan and PC's 2036 report). All benefit to private interests in form of easiest profits, huge taxpayer subsidies, no taxpayer representation, disregard of environmental costs
Concordia is a perfect example. If you disagree, why not post your justification of a broadacre development at Concordia versus infill plus 1100ha new development at Elizabeth with all its advantages.
stumpjumper wrote:SRW it's not cheaper when you include the taxpayer subsidy in the form of new infrastructure, transport extensions etc.
stumpjumper wrote:Fabricrator, I still cannot understand why the government in supporting Macquarie Bank's Concordia project when infill and 'TODification' of Elizabeth would provide better accommodation more quickly, more cheaply, with less environmental load, nearer jobs, better for commuting to Adelaide, and above all without the urban sprawl which planners and governments have been trying to avoid for years.
The portion of public infrastructure at Concordia to be provided by local authorities will have to be paid for (out of borrowings - there will at first be no 'bank' of residential rates built up) at the expense of other work. A new town at Concordia is an expensive option for local and state government, and will continue to cost in carbon.
The Elizabeth CBD was designed to be built up. Even the sewers in the streets of Elizabeth are oversized to allow for future increased density. There is another 1100ha of council owned land adjacent, zoned for redevelopment. It's got its own adaptable industrial base. It's 20km nearer the city. Infilling it will not contribute to urban sprawl.
I must be thick as a brick, but other than the fact that Macquarie Bank would not make as much money out of it if they took it on as they will at Concordia, what is wrong with infilling Elizabeth??
I have looked at it from every angle - I cannot see the advantage of the Concordia project, other than to Macquarie Bank.
Incidentally, Urban Pacific (Macquarie Bank) recently became a major cash donor to the state government through SA Progressive Business Pty Ltd. The actual amount does not have to be disclosed at present.
Put me out of my misery - make a case for Concordia.
Here are the main points for Elizabeth, for your demolition...
- large allotments (600-700sqm av, some 800sqm) which can resubdivided down to 200sqm per dwelling
- substantial government ownership of properties
- 1100ha of adjacent flexibly-zoned development space between Elizabeth and Edinburgh.
- easy commuting distance to Adelaide
- existing infrastructure - roads, power, lighting, sewer, water supply - designed in the 1960's by SA Housing Trust specifically to cope with higher density
- existing sewage treatment can cope with 40,000 extra households
- an existing 'CBD', also designed to take higher density and zoned for multi-level development
- an existing adjacent industrial zone and job source with vacant factory space and capacity for further development
- proximity to interstate road, rail and sea transport connections
- excellent retail facilities including bulky goods
- schools already established
- excellent passenger transport facilities
- well-developed community social and sporting infrastructure
- established sense of community
- minimal need for taxpayers' funds
- increase in private property values in Elizabeth, existing landholders benefit
- infill requires no loss of productive agricultural land
- support from local and nearby councils and community
- low environmental cost in both construction and use
- support from local councils and local communities
My source of information about the adequacy of the infrastructure is a retired civil engineer who was an engineering draftsman on the small team which designed Elizabeth in the late 1950's and 1960's. Playford Council confirmed his information.
Users browsing this forum: buildit83 and 1 guest