Sensational-Adelaide.com

In no way do I suggest it is a causal relationship between growth and density decline. Just that since that's how we do things, we have to regulate to control ourselves, not regulate to enable it to happen that way.

It is not necessary for the CBD to make more revenue than all suburban centres combined: just more per m2 of ground space, which I think even you will have to agree is almost certain, given that I include in that the area of the houses which service the commerce. Besides, the CBD does have higher rents, more expensive hair cuts, more expensive coffees. Apparently someone is making more money out of the CBD than out of suburban shopping malls. (Which are also reprehensible in their dependency on cars: see the outcry when West Lakes was developed, without sufficient extra parking spaces being added.)

I was so disappointed to see as one of the sollutions recommended in that report in the Advertiser the other day was to increase the urban boundary even further. Talk about fighting fire with ridiculously ineffective fire! As for current sprawl: Little Tuscany is at risk, as is productive farmland on the urban fringe in the north. I will never understand why people want to destroy these things and replace it with a suburban carpet 150km long. Urban sprawl must be halted before Gawler, and in time shrunk back so that, like Gawler, Elizabeth and Salisbury stand as independent cities. The same should happen in the south, with Noarlunga and others.

last time i was down south i was amazed how many houses were being built, but then again i suppose it had been about 5 years since my last visit down there. And i am used to living in a constructionzone like where i am presently.

cleverick wrote:In no way do I suggest it is a causal relationship between growth and density decline. Just that since that's how we do things, we have to regulate to control ourselves, not regulate to enable it to happen that way.

It's demographics that are responsible for density decline. Building density is increasing in most areas, but families are getting smaller and the proportion of single people is increasing. You can't effectively regulate demographics, and it wouldn't be worth doing if you could! Nor do we have to regulate it, even though doing so may be desirable.

It is not necessary for the CBD to make more revenue than all suburban centres combined: just more per m2 of ground space, which I think even you will have to agree is almost certain, given that I include in that the area of the houses which service the commerce.

Yes CBD land is worth more - but that doesn't mean it's subsidizing suburbia, as the cost of infrastructure provision is typically much higher in the City than in the suburbs.

Besides, the CBD does have higher rents, more expensive hair cuts, more expensive coffees.

Yes, the natural advantage of the suburbs is that they're cheaper than the CBD. This may not seem important to you, but it is for the hundreds of thousands of suburban residents on relatively low incomes.

Apparently someone is making more money out of the CBD than out of suburban shopping malls. (Which are also reprehensible in their dependency on cars: see the outcry when West Lakes was developed, without sufficient extra parking spaces being added.)

It is not the malls that are reprehensible, it's the poor standard of public transport service that makes them need all that extra parking.

I was so disappointed to see as one of the sollutions recommended in that report in the Advertiser the other day was to increase the urban boundary even further.

One part of the solution rather than a complete solution.

Talk about fighting fire with ridiculously ineffective fire!

Actually, expanding the area available to housing is a very sensible way of addressing the problem of the rising cost of housing.

As for current sprawl: Little Tuscany is at risk,

WTF is "Little Tuscany"? A quick Google search revealed Chain Of Ponds, but there's no way housing's going to be allowed there because they have to protect the Torrens catchment - indeed I seem to recall an entire town was demolished there when they built the reservoir.

as is productive farmland on the urban fringe in the north.

True, but there's no shortage of productive farmland - the limiting factor is water, not land.

I will never understand why people want to destroy these things and replace it with a suburban carpet 150km long.

Is it really not obvious? The land is worth more as suburbia (which isn't carpet at all) than it is as farmland. Were it worth more as farmland, suburbia would not be invading it.

Urban sprawl must be halted before Gawler, and in time shrunk back so that, like Gawler, Elizabeth and Salisbury stand as independent cities. The same should happen in the south, with Noarlunga and others.

That is just silly. There's no advantage at all in having them physically separated.

The only reason suburbia is worth more than farmland is because of the services provided to the land by the govt. If the govt charged the full cost of providing new infrastructure and services to the purchaser the cost equation would change dramatically. Farmland would cease to be built upon. The less dense development is the greater the infrastructure costs per dwelling.

I have pointed out elsewhere in this site that the previous urban growth boundary increase will cost the govt $2 billion dollars more over the next 10 years than if the same number of dwellings were built inside the boundary.

I don't have a problem with the govt subsidising housing but it should be done to provide housing which is sustainable economically, socially and environmentally. providing cheap housing only on the fringes of a city leaves poorer people isolated from employment, medical services, financial services and from social networks.

urban wrote:The only reason suburbia is worth more than farmland is because of the services provided to the land by the govt. If the govt charged the full cost of providing new infrastructure and services to the purchaser the cost equation would change dramatically. Farmland would cease to be built upon. The less dense development is the greater the infrastructure costs per dwelling.

Have you got any evidence for that claim? Most of the infrastructure provision is the responsibility of the developer, not the government. And though the cost of service provision is significant, it seems highly unlikely that it will ever amount to the cost of the land.

I have pointed out elsewhere in this site that the previous urban growth boundary increase will cost the govt $2 billion dollars more over the next 10 years than if the same number of dwellings were built inside the boundary.

You have claimed this elsewhere, but you have not actually provided evidence. You've merely referred to some unspecified Planning Institute of Australia estimates, but do you even know what assumptions those estimates were based on?

I don't have a problem with the govt subsidising housing but it should be done to provide housing which is sustainable economically, socially and environmentally. providing cheap housing only on the fringes of a city leaves poorer people isolated from employment, medical services, financial services and from social networks.

Public transport ensures that the people are not left isolated, and the outer suburbs do include commercial areas, so your argument really doesn't apply.

Anyway, this is not about what kinds of development should be subsidized, it's about whether existing new development is subsidized. And if it is, how much (per house) is it subsidized, and is there any way for the government to recoup the money?

cleverick wrote:As Adelaide's population grows, its density declines.

cleverick wrote:In no way do I suggest it is a causal relationship between growth and density decline.

?

cleverick wrote:It is not necessary for the CBD to make more revenue than all suburban centres combined: just more per m2 of ground space, which I think even you will have to agree is almost certain, given that I include in that the area of the houses which service the commerce.

Almost certain? Based on what figures? Mere assumption?

cleverick wrote:Besides, the CBD does have higher rents, more expensive hair cuts, more expensive coffees. Apparently someone is making more money out of the CBD than out of suburban shopping malls. (Which are also reprehensible in their dependency on cars: see the outcry when West Lakes was developed, without sufficient extra parking spaces being added.)

Higher rents? What about those on Jetty Rd, Glenelg, King William Road or The Parade, Norwood? In any case, what about serviced offices where the rent revenue goes to interstate companies such as Servcorp? It's all well and good to have higher rents but of no value to Adelaide's CBD if it is collected by outside investors. I'd hazard a guess that more of the smaller buildings located along suburban shopping strips are owned by South Australian investors, anyway.

More expensive haircuts and coffees? Based on what figures? What about chain businesses - are Cibo coffees more expensive in the CBD than they are in Glenelg? Are Adelaide Arcade Hair Machine haircuts more expensive than suburban Hair Machine haircuts? Are Centrepoint Target prices more expensive than Westfield Marion Target prices? And so on.

cleverick wrote:I was so disappointed to see as one of the sollutions recommended in that report in the Advertiser the other day was to increase the urban boundary even further. Talk about fighting fire with ridiculously ineffective fire! As for current sprawl: Little Tuscany is at risk, as is productive farmland on the urban fringe in the north. I will never understand why people want to destroy these things and replace it with a suburban carpet 150km long. Urban sprawl must be halted before Gawler, and in time shrunk back so that, like Gawler, Elizabeth and Salisbury stand as independent cities. The same should happen in the south, with Noarlunga and others.

Unless you are prepared to compulsorily acquire hundreds of homes and entire suburbs without thought of financial consequence, then more intelligent solutions are needed. Obviously, we cannot demolish entire suburbs for the sake of our whims, but we can seek land for the sake of development that is demonstrably better than that which currently exists.

What's this thread about, again?

Aidan wrote: Have you got any evidence for that claim? Most of the infrastructure provision is the responsibility of the developer, not the government. And though the cost of service provision is significant, it seems highly unlikely that it will ever amount to the cost of the land.

You have claimed this elsewhere, but you have not actually provided evidence. You've merely referred to some unspecified Planning Institute of Australia estimates, but do you even know what assumptions those estimates were based on?


Public transport ensures that the people are not left isolated, and the outer suburbs do include commercial areas, so your argument really doesn't apply.

Anyway, this is not about what kinds of development should be subsidized, it's about whether existing new development is subsidized. And if it is, how much (per house) is it subsidized, and is there any way for the government to recoup the money?

Aidan have you done any research on this subject or have any experience in this field or are you just sucked in by the Housing Industry Associations self serving propaganda. You jump down the throat of the only person to actually refer to research to back up their claim. Unfortunately I didn't take down the details of the specific paper the figure was based on, but to give you some more information the figure was calculated the govts former head planner using govt supplied data from DTEI, Health and a few other depts. The cost per dwelling is $75,000 over 10 years.

I occasionally do work for councils to design community centres for these new suburbs. In the past the suburbs have been created without areas set aside for commercial or community uses and the councils have had to come in afterwards and build facilities on the edge of the suburb where they are not easily accessible except by car. This is a major problem in poorer suburbs where there might only be 1 car in a household and that is usually used by the worker. The effect of this is that childcare, health services, Centrelink, libraries etc are very difficult to access. The cul-de-sac layout which has dominated suburbs for the last 30 years compounds this problem with circuitous street routes which dramatically increases the distance which needs to be travelled to get anywhere.

Yes the outer suburbs are served by public transport but at large intervals and at much higher expense than inner city areas. The costs for different PT types is given elsewhere on this site and the costs for outer suburbs is significantly higher than inner.

What proof have you got that infrastructure costs more in the city than in the suburbs?
The higher the density of development the lower the cost of infrastructure per dwelling or business.

There is a shortage of productive farmland. It is precisely because subsidised suburbia has pushed farming to more arid areas that the lack of water is such a limiting factor. Fruit trees in the riverland will die if they are not artificially watered. Fruit trees on the Adelaide plain receive enough rainfall even in bad years to survive.

urban wrote:

Aidan wrote: Have you got any evidence for that claim? Most of the infrastructure provision is the responsibility of the developer, not the government. And though the cost of service provision is significant, it seems highly unlikely that it will ever amount to the cost of the land.

You have claimed this elsewhere, but you have not actually provided evidence. You've merely referred to some unspecified Planning Institute of Australia estimates, but do you even know what assumptions those estimates were based on?


Public transport ensures that the people are not left isolated, and the outer suburbs do include commercial areas, so your argument really doesn't apply.

Anyway, this is not about what kinds of development should be subsidized, it's about whether existing new development is subsidized. And if it is, how much (per house) is it subsidized, and is there any way for the government to recoup the money?

Aidan have you done any research on this subject or have any experience in this field or are you just sucked in by the Housing Industry Associations self serving propaganda.

The former.

You jump down the throat of the only person to actually refer to research to back up their claim.

Because when you replied to what I'd written, you made some extraordinary claims but did not supply extraordinary evidence.

I am not going to accept anybody's propaganda, and that includes yours.

Before I "jumped down your throat", I looked for and found the earlier claim you'd made, as I intended to look at the study - but I found that you have not actually referenced it. Even so, I searched on the Planning Institute Australia website, without success. So I only have your word for it that such a study even exists! More importantly, I don't know whether you have reported the study's findings correctly, or whether the study itself was biased.

Unfortunately I didn't take down the details of the specific paper the figure was based on, but to give you some more information the figure was calculated the govts former head planner using govt supplied data from DTEI, Health and a few other depts. The cost per dwelling is $75,000 over 10 years.

Now we're getting somewhere! How much more than farmland is land for housing worth?

I occasionally do work for councils to design community centres for these new suburbs. In the past the suburbs have been created without areas set aside for commercial or community uses and the councils have had to come in afterwards and build facilities on the edge of the suburb where they are not easily accessible except by car. This is a major problem in poorer suburbs where there might only be 1 car in a household and that is usually used by the worker. The effect of this is that childcare, health services, Centrelink, libraries etc are very difficult to access.

Developing more land does not require the mistakes of the past to be repeated!

The cul-de-sac layout which has dominated suburbs for the last 30 years compounds this problem with circuitous street routes which dramatically increases the distance which needs to be travelled to get anywhere.

It usually doesn't, as footpaths are usually provided, so pedestrian routes are usually quite direct. Don't confuse Adelaide street layout with American street layout!

Yes the outer suburbs are served by public transport but at large intervals and at much higher expense than inner city areas. The costs for different PT types is given elsewhere on this site and the costs for outer suburbs is significantly higher than inner.

True, but the amount the government spends on PT isn't all that high (unfortunately).

What proof have you got that infrastructure costs more in the city than in the suburbs?

Do you doubt it is cheaper to build infrastructure from scratch than to alter infrastructure while it is in use?

The higher the density of development the lower the cost of infrastructure per dwelling or business.

Usually true, but you have to be careful of two things: firstly the higher density can result in a harsher environment, making the infrastructure more difficult to maintain or alter. Secondly, the cost of the buildings is much cheaper for low density development than for high, so you might not end up with a cost saving at all.

There is a shortage of productive farmland. It is precisely because subsidised suburbia has pushed farming to more arid areas that the lack of water is such a limiting factor. Fruit trees in the riverland will die if they are not artificially watered. Fruit trees on the Adelaide plain receive enough rainfall even in bad years to survive.

In some areas of the Adelaide plains that's true, but elsewhere on the Adelaide plains water is scarcer. The rural parts of the Adelaide plains aren't full of fruit trees, and McLaren Vale has far fewer almond trees now than it used to, not because of urbanization, but because they use too much water.

This is getting very interesting.
Firstly, I would like to say that people misinterpret me when they hear me say I want to restrict the urban boundary. I'm not advocating we compulsorily acquire entire suburbs, just slowly cut them off from enormous government subsidies in the form of free roads and subsidised sewerage, water, phone, gas, electricity and water connections. And of course there is value in having Gawler, Elizabeth and Adelaide as discrete urban boundaries: there is space for farmland between them. If we want to be a state which makes things, we shouldn't be buying our food from overseas. In a world where transport costs are increasing and the price of food skyrocketing, it makes sense to grow our own really close to the population centre. Like everyone in Europe does. (Which is why PT in Adelaide sucks in comparison to PT in Europe.)
Suburban infrastructure is much more costly than urban. To supply the same number of dwellings, a much larger area must be covered. As for the costs associated with its upkeep: I can see your point about density making it more costly, but I don't think you're right. (I have no evidence.)
Aidan, the government recoups the costs from the subsidies to suburbia by taxing corporations' profits, with payroll tax, the GST, petrol excise and so on and so forth. Taxes generally would be much lower if people lived more densely. This is what I mean by the CBD subsidising the suburbs.
Omicron, Jetty Rd is in Glenelg, which, in more extreme moments of despair, I advocate should also be a discrete urban boundary of its own. That would make Jetty Rd its own CBD, and actually goes further to proving my point than disproving. I am all for such shopping strips, and completely against malls. Malls require cars because you're meant to buy so much at one it's impractical to use PT, even if it were provided. And while shopping strips develop along local lines to serve a community, malls are designed to serve as the CBD of a large area of suburbs- some of which will be a long way away, and since they're not the CBD, public transport cannot efficiently serve them. (In the sense that the density of traffic is not enough, and the routes will not go there.)
Aidan, developing more land *is* a mistake of the past. Are you advocating TODs outside the outer suburbs, a band of low-density outer suburbs, the dense inner suburbs and the CBD? And this is meant not to isolate people? To consider expanding the urban boundary results in speculation and land banking. To do it intensifies the problem and starts the cycle again. It endagers some native species, it puts suburbia too close to the bushfire line, it results in a loss of productive land for farming. While not everywhere on the plains gets enough water for fruit trees, that's no reason not to plant them where they will get enough! Even with fast, efficient transportation, someone in Aldinga will never be able to say they are not isolated from Gawler. Our city has lost all human scale, and is developing a monstrous life of its own, fed at times by Rann and others acceptance of developers' claims that to build a few houses out at Playford will ease the housing affordability crisis.
/rant for now

There is no such thing as a ''free" road.

I hate hearing that.

cleverick wrote:This is getting very interesting.
Firstly, I would like to say that people misinterpret me when they hear me say I want to restrict the urban boundary. I'm not advocating we compulsorily acquire entire suburbs, just slowly cut them off from enormous government subsidies in the form of free roads and subsidised sewerage, water, phone, gas, electricity and water connections.

What subsidies? Based on what evidence?

Free roads? Oh, for goodness sake. Roads are not, under any circumstances, free of charge to the taxpayer/ratepayer. Local road maintenance is entirely paid for by councils through the collection of rates. Local streets are the responsibility of local governments, who seek to improve footpaths, re-tar roads or improve gutters. Ratepayers will pay for regular road maintenance, passers-by will pay for tolls (should they be introduced) or other such regular payments. New freeways funded by State or Federal Governments are not free roads for the residents of the council areas through which the new road extends. The idea of 'free roads' just isn't right.

cleverick wrote:And of course there is value in having Gawler, Elizabeth and Adelaide as discrete urban boundaries: there is space for farmland between them. If we want to be a state which makes things, we shouldn't be buying our food from overseas. In a world where transport costs are increasing and the price of food skyrocketing, it makes sense to grow our own really close to the population centre. Like everyone in Europe does. (Which is why PT in Adelaide sucks in comparison to PT in Europe.)

Like everyone in Europe does? So all the food consumed within Naples is grown closer to Naples than any other Italian city? All the food consumed within Paris is grown closer to Paris than any other French city? My mistake - everyone within Europe consumes food that is grown within the closest possible distance of their homes, and does not accept food from distances that are closer to other cities than that of their own.

Not everyone in Europe grows their own food or only consumes food grown within a short distance of their own homes. They are just as reliant upon imported food and fast food as we are.

Clearly, there are European cities that far outperform Adelaide in the context of public transport effectiveness, just as there are cities that lag behind. It is clear, however, that Europe as a whole consists of public transport systems of varying usefulness, so I doubt very much that every city within every country within Europe deserves accolades that damn Adelaide as nothing more than a mere backwater. We need to identify specific cities from across the world that are doing things well and adapt them to our own city.

cleverick wrote:Suburban infrastructure is much more costly than urban. To supply the same number of dwellings, a much larger area must be covered. As for the costs associated with its upkeep: I can see your point about density making it more costly, but I don't think you're right. (I have no evidence.)

Mmm.

cleverick wrote:Aidan, the government recoups the costs from the subsidies to suburbia by taxing corporations' profits, with payroll tax, the GST, petrol excise and so on and so forth. Taxes generally would be much lower if people lived more densely. This is what I mean by the CBD subsidising the suburbs.

Taxes would be lower if people lived in higher-density developments closer to town? So, income tax would be reduced if people lived in higher-density apartments? GST would be reduced? Payroll tax would be reduced? Petrol tax would be reduced? The luxury car tax wouuld be reduced? Stamp duty would be reduced?

cleverick wrote:Omicron, Jetty Rd is in Glenelg, which, in more extreme moments of despair, I advocate should also be a discrete urban boundary of its own. That would make Jetty Rd its own CBD, and actually goes further to proving my point than disproving. I am all for such shopping strips, and completely against malls. Malls require cars because you're meant to buy so much at one it's impractical to use PT, even if it were provided.

So, you would know the number and volume of items purchased on average by an indivudual at a suburban shopping centre compared to the number and volume of items purchased on average by an individual at a CBD shopping mall? And, of course, you would know the combined average spend of customers on shopping strips versus the combined average spend of consumers in Adelaide metropolitan shopping centres versus the average spend of consumers in the CBD? In essence, your last statement is an entirely subjective one - we cannot base planning decisions upon mere opinions of usage and patronage without any defensible statistics whatsoever, let alone any views that are inconsistent with logical thinking.

cleverick wrote:And while shopping strips develop along local lines to serve a community, malls are designed to serve as the CBD of a large area of suburbs- some of which will be a long way away, and since they're not the CBD, public transport cannot efficiently serve them. (In the sense that the density of traffic is not enough, and the routes will not go there.)

The 199, 213, 214, 215, 216, 241, 242, 245, 248, 262, 263, 265, 297, 600, 601, 640, 645, 646, 680, 681, 684, 685, 720, 732, 733, 734, J7, M44, and G44 available from Westfield Marion, or the 702A, 702C, 715, 716, 721, 721X, T721, T721X, 722, 723, 724, 725, 732, 733, 734, 740, 741, 743, 744, 745, 747, T748, 749. 750, 751, and 753 available from Colonnades suggest that public transport routes do go to suburban shopping malls on a regular basis.

cleverick wrote:Aidan, developing more land *is* a mistake of the past. Are you advocating TODs outside the outer suburbs, a band of low-density outer suburbs, the dense inner suburbs and the CBD? And this is meant not to isolate people? To consider expanding the urban boundary results in speculation and land banking. To do it intensifies the problem and starts the cycle again. It endagers some native species, it puts suburbia too close to the bushfire line, it results in a loss of productive land for farming. While not everywhere on the plains gets enough water for fruit trees, that's no reason not to plant them where they will get enough! Even with fast, efficient transportation, someone in Aldinga will never be able to say they are not isolated from Gawler. Our city has lost all human scale, and is developing a monstrous life of its own, fed at times by Rann and others acceptance of developers' claims that to build a few houses out at Playford will ease the housing affordability crisis.
/rant for now

Yes! I do agree here - why are we seeking to expand the Adelaide urban boundary when we have so many other potential solutions within the existing limits? Aldinga is remarkably far away from the CBD - we must look at outer-southern and outer-northern residents and determine if their workplaces are best-suited to living in such a location. If outer residents work within outer-suburban businesses, then we cannot simply decree that all outer suburbs are outdated relics of '60s urban planning - we must be sufficiently adaptable to realise that high-density living is not acceptable nor appropriate for everyone. It ought to be our aim to encourage those who are suited for medium/high-density living within appropriate TODs to do so on the basis of free will - not because strict Government policy forces them to do so.

This seemed interesting:

http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080 ... l#comments

Enjoy.

cleverick wrote:This seemed interesting:

http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080 ... l#comments

Enjoy.

Crikey is absolutely 100% on the money with what they have said in that article.

Ufortunately with no easy way to fix the affordability crisis, we are headed for a bubble burst followed by a recession just like the US.

I just read through this entire thread and I reckon it's one of the most fascinating and complex ones ever! Also interesting is how it started as a comparison of public transport around the world and then morphed into a debate on population density.

What I'd really like to know is what happened to Bender, who started this thread back in April and hasn't posted since. Bender, are you out there?! (And a warm welcome to the forum. Although I'm still pretty new round here, too. )

A one stop post for transport related links within Adelaide and South Australia.

DTEI
Homepage for the Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (DTEI). Pretty much every transport and infrastructure developement will be listed here.

DTEI - Public Transport Division
Public Transport Division of the DTEI.

TendersSA
While somewhat general, this is a useful website that allows you to see what is happening on a certain project in detail (orders of materials and the like).

TransportSA
TransportSA which lists details of various incidents, regulations and changes to transport in SA.

AdelaideMetro
Public transport timetables and timetable changes, service interruptions as well as other details presented in a more "public" level.

TransAdelaide
Operator of the railways and tramways within Adelaide. Track upgrades, service reliability ratings and job offers as well as other odds and ends.

If anyone else has any other links of interest in this field, could you post them here.

(MODS: Possibility for sticky status?)