News & Developments: Mawson Lakes

[omada]

Post by joshzxzx:
With all this activity and extra residents in the area it would be nice to maybe see some higher buildings in the Mawson lakes CBD. Just imagine more busineses and alternative to Adelaide CBD. It could be come a small version of NSW's Newcasltle.

Hey maybe i am dreaming.. Would be nice to see though

Well it has been earmarked by the State Govt as a "development hub", so I wouldn't be surprised if this happens, closer to reality than a dream.

[Xaragmata]

Multi-Function Polis?

[bm7500]

Multi-Function Polis?

Thats a good one!

[Neuropolis]

I like the fact that there are a diversity of strong opionions on this board, however, it's quite clear in my lurking so far that the prevailing attitude of the younger posters around here is that Adelaide needs High density housing, public parks for kids,bigger buildings and more nightlife.
That's all well and good for sme of course and represents one particular viewpoint.
The function of the young in any society is to drive forward their ideas with passion. But often, that passion comes at the expense of wisdom and sight.
However, this vision, which is vital, when coupled with a disrespect for the views of older residents (often called 'old fogeys') is worthless and hollow.
We all live here, so we all have a valid point of view and don't forget, that when young people get older and have families, suddenly high density living and night life is not really very appealing anymore.
I agree insofar as we need to look at cost effective and sustainable housing solutions which have a smaller ecological footprint, but let us not forget that the types of high density cities overseas we are talking about have huge populations. Last time I checked, Adelaide's population was only around 1.5 million. That's not a drop in the ocean compared to many of those high density cities.
Mawson Lakes is interesting, but does not appeal to me at all as a lifestyle. You simply cannot force everyone to live a high density lifestyle, which is why many people choose to live on the city fringes where population is sparse and space is much greater. It's not an argument to cater only to this type of lifestyle, but nor should we cater only to young couples, singles with a thirst for night life and dinks. That's not representative either.
We can never forget what developers and government are getting out of housing either. Adelaide won't be 'sensational' if we wake up one day in a high density metropolis with no room to move. That's ok for some, perhaps, but frankly there's nothing pretty about it. It's functional and that's it.

[omada]

Neuropolis: I like the fact that there are a diversity of strong opinions on this board, however, it's quite clear in my lurking so far that the prevailing attitude of the younger posters around here is that Adelaide needs High density housing, public parks for kids,bigger buildings and more nightlife.
That's all well and good for sme of course and represents one particular viewpoint.

How do you know that they are all younger posters? There are many people on this forum - we are simply more conscious of the need for consolidated development. Our generation think more than just about our own personal needs, and more about the bigger picture - the world we live in, and the way OUR behaviour can influence not only climate, but indeed the well being of humanity. You see, previous generations have, to put it bluntly - "stuffed up" - they have had the benefit of post war wealth, you have your large properties and a life worry free - now we have to pick up the pieces.

So that is why we advocate a new realistic type of development.

[shaun]

I agree insofar as we need to look at cost effective and sustainable housing solutions which have a smaller ecological footprint, but let us not forget that the types of high density cities overseas we are talking about have huge populations.

Thats not true, there any many cities around the world (especially Europe) that are smaller than Adelaide but have far greater density.

Last time I checked, Adelaide's population was only around 1.5 million. That's not a drop in the ocean compared to many of those high density cities.

Last time I checked Adelaide was only 1.1 million (1.2m for Greater Adelaide).

We can never forget what developers and government are getting out of housing either. Adelaide won't be 'sensational' if we wake up one day in a high density metropolis with no room to move. That's ok for some, perhaps, but frankly there's nothing pretty about it. It's functional and that's it.

That will never happen, there needs to be a good balance between suburban sprawl and higher density living.

[Shuz]

Last time I checked Adelaide was only 1.1 million (1.2m for Greater Adelaide).

"

Last time I checked, and I actually counted the numbers - Adelaide is actually home to about 950,000 in the continous built-up metropolitian area. Greater Adelaide, is 1.1-1.2m. Not to poke any more sticks into the numbers debate... but had to clarify it.

Anyways, I'm very much supportive of Omada's response - each generation is always left to deal with the issues of the previous. What we have come to realise now, is to try killing two birds with one stone by correcting the mistakes of the past generation so to cater for a better future for the next. How we manage our urban agglomerations is a more serious problem than just 'sprawl'. Economic, social and environmental factors are adversely influenced by such development - Elizabeth being a very good case study of social and economic issues associated with urban development. LA is an excellent case study through environmental impacts, I could pinpoint many more where that came from. Did you know that New Yorker's have the lowest carbon footprint of all Americans? Isn't it interesting to note that they live in one the densest urban environments of this world, serviced by numerous modes of public transport which is utilised in enormous numbers. All of these factors have a correlation with one another - proving an indicator that such environments (in its own respect) is better to live in. Adelaide is no New York, I'm blatantly aware - if anything, we must look into this city's problems to correct them, not the successes of others. Our success is dependent on correcting the issues relevant to Adelaide, not those of Melbourne or New York. As I mentioned before, Elizabeth is an example of urban development epitomised as a huge social and economical failure - I have much faith that the Northern Summit will address some of these issues. This development and others elsewhere are to learn from such.

[shaun]

Last time I checked Adelaide was only 1.1 million (1.2m for Greater Adelaide).

"

Last time I checked, and I actually counted the numbers - Adelaide is actually home to about 950,000 in the continous built-up metropolitian area. Greater Adelaide, is 1.1-1.2m. Not to poke any more sticks into the numbers debate... but had to clarify it.

How the hell do you figure that?

[shaun]

Last time I checked Adelaide was only 1.1 million (1.2m for Greater Adelaide).

"

Last time I checked, and I actually counted the numbers - Adelaide is actually home to about 950,000 in the continous built-up metropolitian area. Greater Adelaide, is 1.1-1.2m. Not to poke any more sticks into the numbers debate... but had to clarify it.

How the hell do you figure that?

ABS stats show that Adelaide has a population of 1.1 million, not 950,000.

[Shuz]

I had a look on ABS - The data's been updated to 2007, I was using 2006 numbers previously. Anyways, I had a count for myself again and Adelaide stands at 1.07m. I have my objections to Gawler, Adelaide Hills and part of Onkaparinga LGA's being counted, because its not part of the continous urban metropolitian area. I still counted Onkaparinga in the numbers, because it would be impossible to determine the exact populations of townships segregated from the continous urban metropolitian area. Much to my surprise, Mount Barker is an LGA of its own, and not even included in the statistics (always thought it had been). This is where numbers become debatable - but I will agree that the 'Greater Adelaide' is 1.2m - which is defined by townships primarly economically reliant on the resources and services of a larger township (that being Adelaide proper). We could have this debate on end, but I will make myself clear my opinion stands firm.

[shaun]

[quote="Shuz"]I had a look on ABS - The data's been updated to 2007, I was using 2006 numbers previously. Anyways, I had a count for myself again and Adelaide stands at 1.07m. I have my objections to Gawler, Adelaide Hills and part of Onkaparinga LGA's being counted, because its not part of the continous urban metropolitian area.

I didn't think Gawler, Adelaide Hills etc were even included..

[Neuropolis]

Neuropolis: I like the fact that there are a diversity of strong opinions on this board, however, it's quite clear in my lurking so far that the prevailing attitude of the younger posters around here is that Adelaide needs High density housing, public parks for kids,bigger buildings and more nightlife.
That's all well and good for sme of course and represents one particular viewpoint.

How do you know that they are all younger posters? There are many people on this forum - we are simply more conscious of the need for consolidated development. Our generation think more than just about our own personal needs, and more about the bigger picture - the world we live in, and the way OUR behaviour can influence not only climate, but indeed the well being of humanity. You see, previous generations have, to put it bluntly - "stuffed up" - they have had the benefit of post war wealth, you have your large properties and a life worry free - now we have to pick up the pieces.

So that is why we advocate a new realistic type of development.

I don't know that they ALL are, but then I didn't actually say this. There are a range of ages and opinions, but it seems to me that a number of younger posters have a particular vision.
Although, to be fair, it's not stuff I haven't heard before. People have been going on about Adelaide for many years and how it needs to be developed.
I'm not anti development because I realise that everything changes. But, I'm not a fan of all development. I think that's a pretty reasonable point of view.
It's like I stated, the evolutionary function of the young in society (all over the world) is to passionately highlight new directions. That's the way things have always been and will continue to be. It's a biological truth really.
Conversely, the function of the old is to balance that spark of enthusiasm with the benefit of hindsight and temperance. Too much imbalance in either direction is destructive. One way is development unbound leading to social and ecological disaster and the other is complete stagnation leading to expiry. The middle path, as in many things, is preferable.
This is why any discussion about development need to become a nexus of opinions that are inclusive of all ages.
Every generation is the same. Each successive generation looks to the past and only sees the mistakes. That's how change occurs. It's an imperative.
When this generation of 'bright young things' grows older they will also face the same fears and suspicion of change and ideas that were once new, will become old. And so the cycle continues.
My point is that we should not take sides in all of this. I have noted hostility on both sides and I don't think it's productive. Unbridled development is as bad and as destructive as none at all.
I've been to New York several times and frankly, I don't like it. A city that never sleeps is a city that is tense and ugly to me.

[Will]

I like the fact that there are a diversity of strong opionions on this board, however, it's quite clear in my lurking so far that the prevailing attitude of the younger posters around here is that Adelaide needs High density housing, public parks for kids,bigger buildings and more nightlife.
That's all well and good for sme of course and represents one particular viewpoint.
The function of the young in any society is to drive forward their ideas with passion. But often, that passion comes at the expense of wisdom and sight.
However, this vision, which is vital, when coupled with a disrespect for the views of older residents (often called 'old fogeys') is worthless and hollow.
We all live here, so we all have a valid point of view and don't forget, that when young people get older and have families, suddenly high density living and night life is not really very appealing anymore.
I agree insofar as we need to look at cost effective and sustainable housing solutions which have a smaller ecological footprint, but let us not forget that the types of high density cities overseas we are talking about have huge populations. Last time I checked, Adelaide's population was only around 1.5 million. That's not a drop in the ocean compared to many of those high density cities.
Mawson Lakes is interesting, but does not appeal to me at all as a lifestyle. You simply cannot force everyone to live a high density lifestyle, which is why many people choose to live on the city fringes where population is sparse and space is much greater. It's not an argument to cater only to this type of lifestyle, but nor should we cater only to young couples, singles with a thirst for night life and dinks. That's not representative either.
We can never forget what developers and government are getting out of housing either. Adelaide won't be 'sensational' if we wake up one day in a high density metropolis with no room to move. That's ok for some, perhaps, but frankly there's nothing pretty about it. It's functional and that's it.

In your second post you wrote: "Too much imbalance in either direction is destructive". I completely agree. At the moment the problem with Adelaide is that the older generation have held the views of the younger generation oppressed for far too long. This is why people in the 20-30 age bracket are leaving Adelaide in droves to places that value their vitality. Last year we as a state had a net loss of more than 3000 people. This is something very worrying, and something to think about next time you oppose change.

[Neuropolis]

I like the fact that there are a diversity of strong opionions on this board, however, it's quite clear in my lurking so far that the prevailing attitude of the younger posters around here is that Adelaide needs High density housing, public parks for kids,bigger buildings and more nightlife.
That's all well and good for sme of course and represents one particular viewpoint.
The function of the young in any society is to drive forward their ideas with passion. But often, that passion comes at the expense of wisdom and sight.
However, this vision, which is vital, when coupled with a disrespect for the views of older residents (often called 'old fogeys') is worthless and hollow.
We all live here, so we all have a valid point of view and don't forget, that when young people get older and have families, suddenly high density living and night life is not really very appealing anymore.
I agree insofar as we need to look at cost effective and sustainable housing solutions which have a smaller ecological footprint, but let us not forget that the types of high density cities overseas we are talking about have huge populations. Last time I checked, Adelaide's population was only around 1.5 million. That's not a drop in the ocean compared to many of those high density cities.
Mawson Lakes is interesting, but does not appeal to me at all as a lifestyle. You simply cannot force everyone to live a high density lifestyle, which is why many people choose to live on the city fringes where population is sparse and space is much greater. It's not an argument to cater only to this type of lifestyle, but nor should we cater only to young couples, singles with a thirst for night life and dinks. That's not representative either.
We can never forget what developers and government are getting out of housing either. Adelaide won't be 'sensational' if we wake up one day in a high density metropolis with no room to move. That's ok for some, perhaps, but frankly there's nothing pretty about it. It's functional and that's it.

In your second post you wrote: "Too much imbalance in either direction is destructive". I completely agree. At the moment the problem with Adelaide is that the older generation have held the views of the younger generation oppressed for far too long. This is why people in the 20-30 age bracket are leaving Adelaide in droves to places that value their vitality. Last year we as a state had a net loss of more than 3000 people. This is something very worrying, and something to think about next time you oppose change.

Well, indeed. Although to be completely fair, it's not all because of any lack of development. Throughout my high school years there were plenty of people who simply wanted a more exciting life and looked to cities like Sydney and Melbourne for it. Those same people now have families and have other priorities and the glitz that once tempted them is now unappealing. I've also know plenty of people who always liked Adelaide for what it was...a 'contented metropolis'...as one tourism pundit once wrote.
Adelaide has a long and strong heritage of a sort of 'bourgeois' conservatism, no doubt emerging due to it being settled as a free colony in the 19th century.
That attitude still persists and this is probably part of what you are talking about.
It's certainly never as simple as 'oppressing' younger views. Although, I used to think much the same at one point in my life. Life, as always, is full of grey areas that don't always fit the puzzle.
There has been some history of dourness when it comes to exciting development. I remember when the so called Multi-Function polis was a bright new idea. It may have put Adelaide on some sort of map..at least, that's what we thought. But it was ultimately defeated on environmental grounds from what I can remember. That's also part of the brain drain phenomenon, so it's nothing especially new.
Successive short sighted Governments have never really helped either and the Trams are a good example of a strong polarisation of views among people. Some people look at it as an exciting development that could revitalise the city centre and be the start of something, while others, including myself, see it simply as a waste of money when there are plenty of more important infrastructure problems to get right in this state. I used to think that a new stadium was a great idea, so can understand it when people find it exciting, but as a family man these days with completely different and completely normal priorities, it seems like a load of faff.

[Wayno]

Well, indeed. Although to be completely fair, it's not all because of any lack of development. Throughout my high school years there were plenty of people who simply wanted a more exciting life and looked to cities like Sydney and Melbourne for it. Those same people now have families and have other priorities and the glitz that once tempted them is now unappealing. I've also know plenty of people who always liked Adelaide for what it was...a 'contented metropolis'...as one tourism pundit once wrote.
Adelaide has a long and strong heritage of a sort of 'bourgeois' conservatism, no doubt emerging due to it being settled as a free colony in the 19th century.
That attitude still persists and this is probably part of what you are talking about.
It's certainly never as simple as 'oppressing' younger views. Although, I used to think much the same at one point in my life. Life, as always, is full of grey areas that don't always fit the puzzle.
There has been some history of dourness when it comes to exciting development. I remember when the so called Multi-Function polis was a bright new idea. It may have put Adelaide on some sort of map..at least, that's what we thought. But it was ultimately defeated on environmental grounds from what I can remember. That's also part of the brain drain phenomenon, so it's nothing especially new.
Successive short sighted Governments have never really helped either and the Trams are a good example of a strong polarisation of views among people. Some people look at it as an exciting development that could revitalise the city centre and be the start of something, while others, including myself, see it simply as a waste of money when there are plenty of more important infrastructure problems to get right in this state. I used to think that a new stadium was a great idea, so can understand it when people find it exciting, but as a family man these days with completely different and completely normal priorities, it seems like a load of faff.

Much of the zeal for new development shown by 20-30yo people can be put down to two main reasons:

• 1) a comparative lack of development compared to just about all other australian states (too many years of plans, rejection, inaction), and
  2) the pure desire to wrestle control away from those who have held Adelaide back in so many respects.

Is there an overreaction due to 1) & 2) above? probably a bit, but not excessive by any means, and definitely not putting Adelaide's distinct character at risk. This is just an exercise in generational calibration.