Housing Developments | Northern Suburbs

[Cruise]

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?

[AtD]

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

[Cruise]

housing people is bad?

[urban]

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.

[Queen Anne]

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?

[Cruise]

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.

[AtD]

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

it's a lifestyle choice

Can't have it both ways, Cruise.

[Cruise]

Can't have it both ways, Cruise.

I guess your right, But Cruise still believes his way of life is the best way of life, because he chose it.

[Neuropolis]

There are mixed feelings about the proposed development in Gawler East.
As a resident very close to the area of Delfin development, I can tell you that the road infrastructure in Gawler town (particularly Murray street) is already straining under the weight of increased traffic flows. We are talking about a 19th century infrastructure here and the local council is already planning to narrow the street further by beautifying it and increasing the sidewalks. Obviously, this will do nothing to aid in alleviating traffic congestion over the next decade as population increases by at least 25%.
Calton road, currently slated for a Target shopping centre development (already underway) will need to be able to deal with increased traffic flows as development in Gawler East gets underway. This is going to severely impact the many local residents of traditionally quiet Gawler East and as yet, Delfin or the Gawler council have not responded with any definite plans to offer a decent solution.
The impression we get from the council is that the State Govt is riding over local concerns to develop this area with Delfin and despite opening up a dialogue with residents, nothing is going to modify it.
Local heritage organisations have already tried to open up a dialogue outlining concerns about natural waterways in the area, including woodland areas and areas of arable land and biodiversity. There is also a growing concern about the nature of the proposed housing and how this will affect the social cohesion of the town, which has always had an identity crisis, but has always remained staunch about its heritage. The fear is that such a dramatic increase in the population will not only strain the existing infrastructure, but ruin the 'country feel' of the town and create a dormitory suburb.

[crawf]

There are mixed feelings about the proposed development in Gawler East.
As a resident very close to the area of Delfin development, I can tell you that the road infrastructure in Gawler town (particularly Murray street) is already straining under the weight of increased traffic flows. We are talking about a 19th century infrastructure here and the local council is already planning to narrow the street further by beautifying it and increasing the sidewalks. Obviously, this will do nothing to aid in alleviating traffic congestion over the next decade as population increases by at least 25%.

I'm all up for beautifying the street, however narrowing a even already narrow road will be a disaster.

Whats the public transport like up there?

[Neuropolis]

I have no problem with beautification either. We should have more of it frankly.
However, in this case, it is Murray street, which is the main street in Gawler. This is where the shopping precinct is, home to most of the small businesses with entries to Coles, Woolworths and larger shops.
We get a massive amount of traffic here daily now...commuters to the city and Northern suburbs, tourists, local traffic, freight and traffic due to recent road works.
We have Cheek avenue in East Gawler, which I suspect will become a main road during development.
What needs to happen is a bypass through Willaston to Hewitt and another main road parallel to Murray street to service Gawler East. This might need to entry/exit on Main North road before the town centre.
Train services are currently not very good and there are no bus services.
I can imagine that if alternate routes are not created, the major increase in traffic will require that Murray street is somehow widened in future which will be a disaster for the small businesses around here.

[Norman]

Whats the public transport like up there?

They have the Gawler Train, but no buses (for now anyway)

[crawf]

Yeah though they have something else

I think its a local service, which you have to pre book.

Really Gawler should have its own metro bus services.

[Norman]

Yeah though they have something else

I think its a local service, which you have to pre book.

Really Gawler should have its own metro bus services.

Exactly, if Mount Barker can have a regular Metroticket loop service, so can Gawler.

[crawf]

Especially that apparently Gawler is nearly double the size of Mt Barker.

There was talk of a prebook service being introduced in Mt Barker, however this was quite a while ago and haven't anything about it ever since.