The Art of Gen X/Y

[nhg]

Sydney is in the same category as Paris?

Having had the opportunity to visit most of those cities, I must suggest looking at them without the tourist glasses on. Or perhaps looking at Sydney through the eyes of an outsider.

I would rate Sydney pretty highly. On almost all measures.

LA and Paris, just like anywhere are pretty ghetto once you leave the tourist landmarks. Actually LA is pretty ghetto at the tourist landmarks too.

 

[Fifth]

Most people who live in any respectable city around the world (read: actual city, not sprawly metropolitan area) live in "dog boxes". The main people I've seen who seem to be so anti-apartment are those who have a chip on their shoulder because they live in a big house in the middle of nowhere and have to spend half their life commuting.

I spent most of my life living in inner city 'dog boxes'. I hated it. For some people, the lifestyle is great. For others, it's entirely unsuitable.

We're pet-orientated homebodies who like our personal space. When we bought our home, the most important thing was that it be a detached house with a decent sized outdoor area. We couldn't afford this close to the city so we moved further out.

And, no, we're not overweight car drivers living in a McMansion. Our house is a small and old 3/1, we're both slim and we don't own a car, though my husband is buying one soon so that we can take day trips to national parks and whatnot (for environmental reasons, we never wanted to own a car, but we've conceded that it would substantially improve our quality of life).

I love living in a house and I can imagine nothing worse than going back to apartment living. To us, it's akin to living in a cell.

I like gardening, the fresh air, waking up to the sound of native birds chirping instead of traffic, having an outdoor cat enclosure that's bigger than some studio apartments, having the option to add a dog or chickens to the mix at some point, having native reserves and creek trails within walking distance and most of all I love that we don't have to share a wall with anyone else and deal with strata nonsense.

This isn't the chip on my shoulder speaking. Like most people who chose to buy a house in the suburbs, we could have opted for an apartment in the inner city but we chose this instead.

What does rub me the wrong way is the lack of infrastructure and the state government's (whether it be Labor or Liberal) inability to add infrastructure in a timely and cost efficient manner.

 

[Robbo2621]

Arrived in Paris yesterday, so will see how liveable it is over the next few days.

 

[tambourineman]

the lack of infrastructure argument is a furphy

i work on infrastructure projects for a living, guess where they all are being built - outlying suburbs of major cities and regional centres.

 

[Fifth]

the lack of infrastructure argument is a furphy

i work on infrastructure projects for a living, guess where they all are being built - outlying suburbs of major cities and regional centres.

Yes, all the major infrastructure projects are being built in the outer suburbs, but they take forever to complete and cost an absolute fortune. A single train station addition can take years and hundreds of millions of dollars, let alone adding a whole new line.

Our forefathers would shake their heads.

 

[sanj]

Yes, all the major infrastructure projects are being built in the outer suburbs, but they take forever to complete and cost an absolute fortune. A single train station addition can take years and hundreds of millions of dollars, let alone adding a whole new line.

Our forefathers would shake their heads.

what do you expect? infrastructure is always going to cost more when is in the middle of nowhere and servicing fewer people due to the lack of density.

our forefathers would indeed shake their heads at people who expect the same level of infrastructure in the sticks.

 

[tambourineman]

Yes, all the major infrastructure projects are being built in the outer suburbs, but they take forever to complete and cost an absolute fortune. A single train station addition can take years and hundreds of millions of dollars, let alone adding a whole new line.

Our forefathers would shake their heads.

it depends where you're building them - i wouldnt go as far as saying a train station costs hundreds of millions of dollars, that will buy you a lot of track and a few stations but i understand what you are trying to say.

my point is the govertnment is investing in infrastructure in those areas, most of them are serviced by new schools and large suburban centres with the same facilities as the CBD. To use Sydney as an example - all the city really has to offer is the harbour, the opera house and the bridge with a few fancy restaurants - what else is there?

work? sure - some people work there but not everyone and besides, but perhaps the future is more in working from home etc - the NBN is a project that may one day make that more common place.

 

[tambourineman]

what do you expect? infrastructure is always going to cost more when is in the middle of nowhere and servicing fewer people due to the lack of density.

our forefathers would indeed shake their heads at people who expect the same level of infrastructure in the sticks.

it costs almost the same to build a freeway in the city as it does in a rural environment, all other things being equal. if anything it costs less, because you dont have so much traffic, existing infrastructure and other constraints to deal with

 

[sanj]

it costs almost the same to build a freeway in the city as it does in a rural environment, all other things being equal. if anything it costs less, because you dont have so much traffic, existing infrastructure and other constraints to deal with

im talking schools, hospitals, trains, buses etc.

 

[Fifth]

what do you expect? infrastructure is always going to cost more when is in the middle of nowhere and servicing fewer people due to the lack of density.

our forefathers would indeed shake their heads at people who expect the same level of infrastructure in the sticks.

Our forefathers would not have sold off crown land to short sighted developers if they didn't believe infrastructure could keep up with population increases.

A lot of the public transport links went out to what was then considered 'the sticks' back in the day, you know?

During election time, we're showered with promises of new infrastructure. These projects spend years and years in the 'planning stage' and awful lot of money is spent of said 'planning'. Meanwhile, more estates pop up in surrounding areas and more pressure is put on existing infrastructure. Either provide infrastructure or stop selling off land for development. The government cannot have it both ways.

 

[Fifth]

im talking schools, hospitals, trains, buses etc.

It doesn't really cost more to build a school or a hospital 30kms from the city than 5kms. In fact, it's cheaper as the land is cheaper.

 

[tambourineman]

im talking schools, hospitals, trains, buses etc.

you can find all of these things in rural areas and outlying suburbs and usually, in a lot better shape than the ones in the city.

 

[nhg]

It doesn't really cost more to build a school or a hospital 30kms from the city than 5kms. In fact, it's cheaper as the land is cheaper.

Umm. Yes and no.

Depends how rural we are talking and heritage/enviro implications amongst many more.

Greenfield is usually cheaper than brownfield of course.

 

[tambourineman]

Most people who live in any respectable city around the world (read: actual city, not sprawly metropolitan area) live in "dog boxes". The main people I've seen who seem to be so anti-apartment are those who have a chip on their shoulder because they live in a big house in the middle of nowhere and have to spend half their life commuting.

you need to pick your jobs - i think in my entire career I have only had one job where I have needed to commute to the CBD - I soon got sick of it, quit, and got paid much more money living and working in the outer suburbs.

 

[tambourineman]

Umm. Yes and no.

Depends how rural we are talking and heritage/enviro implications amongst many more.

Greenfield is usually cheaper than brownfield of course.

i think it also depends on the weather nhg

 

[Fifth]

it depends where you're building them - i wouldnt go as far as saying a train station costs hundreds of millions of dollars, that will buy you a lot of track and a few stations but i understand what you are trying to say.

South Morang station in Melbourne was first promised during 1999 election. It was completed in 2012. It cost $498 million to add the station and the track, though that included revamping one or two of the pre-existing stations.

How much would a whole line blow out to?

 

[sanj]

It doesn't really cost more to build a school or a hospital 30kms from the city than 5kms. In fact, it's cheaper as the land is cheaper.

Do you honestly not get it?

Lets say 10 people live per hectare in the sticks and 50 in a more inner area.

road constructed and maintained etc will cost a lot less per person in an inner area. public transport is even more reliant on density because it typically runs at a loss and is subisidised by the govt. the further out and less dense it is the less people use it and the more the govt loses every single year propping it out.

eg, using random figures, if the govt was to choose between spending $100m on a station that would service 10000 weekly commuters Vs 50000, the cost per commuter is 5 times higher.

it is the same with hospitals, which are extremely expensive to build and run. there has to be enough critical mass to justify the expenditure

it ultimately comes down to dollars and in a high cost environment like australia it is always going to be very expensive to service sprawl suburbs so they will never be serviced as well.

you mentioned that there were valid reasons for you living further out, there are also valid downsides and you can never expect as good infrastructure, it simply will never happen.

i also do find it interesting that you would be quite environmentally conscious but support urban sprawl

 

[tambourineman]

South Morang station in Melbourne was first promised during 1999 election. It was completed in 2012. It cost $498 billion to add the station and the track, though that included revamping one or two of the pre-existing stations.

How much would a whole line blow out to?

498 billion! i think you mean million? it was an Alliance project no wonder it cost so much - it was more than just a station, it involved an extension of the track etc.

 

[tambourineman]

South Morang station in Melbourne was first promised during 1999 election. It was completed in 2012. It cost $498 million to add the station and the track, though that included revamping one or two of the pre-existing stations.

How much would a whole line blow out to?

Seaford rail extension in Adelaide is costing well below that amount.

 

[Fifth]

Do you honestly not get it?

Lets say 10 people live per hectare in the sticks and 50 in a more inner area.

road constructed and maintained etc will cost a lot less per person in an inner area. public transport is even more reliant on density because it typically runs at a loss and is subisidised by the govt. the further out and less dense it is the less people use it and the more the govt loses every single year propping it out.

eg, using random figures, if the govt was to choose between spending $100m on a station that would service 10000 weekly commuters Vs 50000, the cost per commuter is 5 times higher.

it is the same with hospitals, which are extremely expensive to build and run. there has to be enough critical mass to justify the expenditure

it ultimately comes down to dollars and in a high cost environment like australia it is always going to be very expensive to service sprawl suburbs so they will never be serviced as well.

you mentioned that there were valid reasons for you living further out, there are also valid downsides and you can never expect as good infrastructure, it simply will never happen.

i also do find it interesting that you would be quite environmentally conscious but support urban sprawl

I'm not talking about 10 people to a hectare living in the sticks, I'm talking about very built up estates within 30kms on the city which have more than enough demand to justify supply.

Also, nice dig at me for not being 'environmentally conscious' because I'm apparently pro-urban sprawl because I think that people other than the wealthy who are lucky enough to live in the inner city should have the option of living in a house. Good god.

As I said, at this point in life, my quality of life is more important than the environment. I've spent my most of my life trying to do the environmentally 'right' thing i.e. not drive a car, not go on overseas holidays, etc.., only to be lectured by people who boast about how much more environmentally friendly Europe seemed on their last holiday

Umm. Yes and no.

Depends how rural we are talking and heritage/enviro implications amongst many more.

Greenfield is usually cheaper than brownfield of course.

This is true. I'm talking about the kind of flat, largely featureless greenfield that is typical of Melbourne's growth corridor. It's different in every city, but in Melbourne these growth corridors are relatively easy to develop.