Yes, I corrected that.
Perhaps the SA government is more efficient?
The Art of Gen X/Y
- Thread starter Deltaberry
- Start date
Yes, I corrected that.
Perhaps the SA government is more efficient?
the government usually justifies road project expenditure based on freight movements.
they cost benefit this stuff all of the time.
Fifth - i dont mean to argue with you, it is just something im passionate about.
Sprawl is costing the govt and by extension all of us an enormous amount. money that could be used on much more productive things.
this study is a good one to read.
http://www.crcsi.com.au/getattachment/b6e1625f-d90b-433d-945a-6afeff2e42f6/.aspx
"This study would
suggest that if a city has land that can be redeveloped
then there will be highly significant infrastructure
cost savings associated with this compared to new
development on the urban fringe.
Once established, there are many ongoing operational
costs of both urban typologies but the most significant
operational costs are associated with transport. Private
and public costs are needed to ensure people travel
more easily to and from these urban areas. The cost
of both on private and public transport operations
for greenfield development is around $18,000
per household per year more than that for urban
redevelopment. This needs to feed into debates about
aff ordability as over a 50-year period this adds up to
a difference of $251 million for 1000 dwellings, or
$251,000 per household. A number of US studies
are now showing that transport costs on the urban
fringe are higher than mortgage costs (CTCNT, 2006;
Lipman, 2006).
Sprawl is costing the govt and by extension all of us an enormous amount. money that could be used on much more productive things.
this study is a good one to read.
http://www.crcsi.com.au/getattachment/b6e1625f-d90b-433d-945a-6afeff2e42f6/.aspx
"This study would
suggest that if a city has land that can be redeveloped
then there will be highly significant infrastructure
cost savings associated with this compared to new
development on the urban fringe.
Once established, there are many ongoing operational
costs of both urban typologies but the most significant
operational costs are associated with transport. Private
and public costs are needed to ensure people travel
more easily to and from these urban areas. The cost
of both on private and public transport operations
for greenfield development is around $18,000
per household per year more than that for urban
redevelopment. This needs to feed into debates about
aff ordability as over a 50-year period this adds up to
a difference of $251 million for 1000 dwellings, or
$251,000 per household. A number of US studies
are now showing that transport costs on the urban
fringe are higher than mortgage costs (CTCNT, 2006;
Lipman, 2006).
yes and these roads cost a hell of a lot of money, that is my point.
perth metro sprawl will soon be larger than brisbane to gold coast, all because clowns want to insist on living on their own bit of dirt near the beach and everyone else has to support their choice.
we even have ridiculous ideas like eglinton and alkimos which are now nearly at yanchep and of course once people move in they will complain about the lack of infrastructure
I am not convinced -
- whilst urban sprawl may be an issue in europe and the US - i dont think its the same problem in Australia.
- why shouldnt I be able to live in a house with a backyard. you know it makes me laugh - on the one hand - previous generations are critical that "kids of today" spend so much time inside, yet theyre critical of lifestyle choices families make to live in areas where they have a backyard.
- insist on loving on their own bit of dirt - what - rather than pay $800,000 to live on a concrete slab the size of a postage stamp? who is the greater fool?
but at the same time, i get that if you do chose to live a long way from where you work (provided that choice isnt made for you based on the relative cost of housing closer to work when compared with your income etc and is purely a lifestyle choice) than there is no right to complain.
we have never lived in the "inner city suburbs" - we earn enough to live there, but its a choice we have made - everything is available outside of the city, we have no reason to go there and so we cant justify the additional cost of living near there?
im curious as to what issues you think there are with urban sprawl overseas that you genuinely dont think are issues here
The thing about Melbourne is, the outer suburbs in growth corridors are mostly in the west and to a lesser extent the north which has always been neglected development-wise. Thus, many the new outer suburbs in the west or even the north are only as far out as the middle ring suburbs in the east. Hypothetically, once established, the suburbs should cost no more to service than middle ring suburbs on the other side of the city. Yes, establishment costs are there, but that has always been the case when establishing new suburbs and it never stopped us in the past, why do we suddenly say 'no, no more green-site development, those who didn't get in early must now live in apartments unless they're remarkably cashed-up'.
What are now middle or even inner suburbs were once outer suburbs which required the same injection of investment. The thing is now it costs much, much more to provide infrastructure because frankly we're less competent and efficient than in previous generations. I agree that the costs are unreasonable.
Another problem is that the new estates are so poorly planned because the planning was left almost entirely in the hands of property developers.
So far as travel costs go, most people in the outer suburbs don't work in the city, they work locally. Personally, I'd rather see satellite cities established and the gradual decentralisation of Melbourne and the CBD seen less as the holy grail for all economic activity in Victoria.
So far as the environment goes, inner city dwellers have the highest carbon imprint of all, mostly due to plane travel, though the outer suburbs make for an easier target. The worst developments for the environment are actually high density apartments. The electricity required for lifts, basement carparks, pools, communal hallways, aircon, etc. surpasses the footprint of the much maligned outer suburban house.
as an example - the population density of Australia is 2.9 persons per km
in the US - 32.9 persons per km
surope and central asia - 17.6
using a population density stat for the whole of australia is totally and utterly irrelevant when comparing to other countries. we're a country with big dessert, minesites and agriculture
so what's the alternative?
everyone pays 800k to live in the city because it has a nice post code and I can buy a latte at the cute coffee shop up the road?
Well said.sanj said:
This is not an attack on you but backyards are very underutilised. Increasing suburban sprawl is linked to increasingly obesity rates because (I'm guessing) an empty backyard is not as exciting to a kid as an Xbox. If you want children to play outside, there needs to be some inducement. If they live in a new suburb with no footpoth, have friends that live a short drive away (which means they can't see them easily) and have nothing much of interest in the local area then obviously they will sit in front of the TV or computer instead. I can't blame them at all.tambourineman said:
I'm pretty sure it's not "most". Some work locally but a very big number have to commute a decent distance. If not to the CBD itself, to the inner suburbs at least. The difference in commuting time between the two would negligible.Fifth said:
Most people who live in apartment building don't live in massive towers. Most cities where most people live in apartments don't have big towers as the average either. Also, you can't just talk about lighting and swimming pools and ignore car use. Most people I know who live in the outer suburbs have 2-3 cars per household. You need to run a lot of lifts and basement carparks to match the footprint they contribute.Fifth said:
To me it seems from reading various recent articles on this topic, one of the main gripes of the disgruntled attempted buyers is that prices are sold for much higher than the listed price and as such they are sold for over market value and are unaffordable.
I think it shows that most people rely on the listed price to set what they think the "market value" of a property is and adjust their expectation to that, then when they miss out because the list price is too low they get annoyed. This tactic is obviously very effective as agents all over the country use it to get people emotionally hooked on a property which would otherwise be over their budget and who then go over what they had initially set as a budget.
As Aaron said earlier, I also don't have much simpathy for anyone who doesn't put in the research required and go purely base of what the agent tells them a property is worth.
I think it shows that most people rely on the listed price to set what they think the "market value" of a property is and adjust their expectation to that, then when they miss out because the list price is too low they get annoyed. This tactic is obviously very effective as agents all over the country use it to get people emotionally hooked on a property which would otherwise be over their budget and who then go over what they had initially set as a budget.
As Aaron said earlier, I also don't have much simpathy for anyone who doesn't put in the research required and go purely base of what the agent tells them a property is worth.
Actually, there is no link between suburban living and obesity. There is a link between lower socio economic areas in English-speaking countries and obesity. It just so happens that our outer suburbs tend to be lower on the socio economic scale. In New York or any other high density English-speaking city you'll find that the poorer areas are just as obese as our poorer areas.
28% of jobs in the inner city, including inner suburbs outside of the CBD. Thus, 72% of jobs are in the middle to outer suburbs. Go to any outer suburb and you'll find most don't work in the inner suburbs.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2011/11/13/how-much-time-do-melburnians-spend-commuting/
Actually, that's taking car use into consideration. Even with car use, taking all lifestyle factors into consideration, the average inner city resident has a greater carbon footprint than than the average outer suburban resident and this is even more so for high density dwellers. As stated previously, air travel alone puts the inner city latte sipper miles ahead. So, the way I see it, who are inner city residents to lecture those who want to live in a house but don't have the million required for a house in the inner city on environmental sustainability?
Anyway, I believe that when governments sell land for development, they should ensure adequate infrastructure is available for both the new and existing residents. Apparently this is contentious and those who choose to live in outer areas are being selfish to expect infrastructure comparable to what the older suburbs (which were once outer suburbs themselves) received when they were first built. Sounds a bit like 'first come, first serve' hypocrisy to me and really only favours those who got in early (i.e. the Baby Boomers) and the wealthy.
It's usually a concurrent process the infrastructure is usually in planning when they sell the land and the developers also use this to
Market the blocks to respective buyers
Market the blocks to respective buyers
Yes best to assume that every word out of a real estate agent's mouth is a lie including "the" and "and".
That's actually a pretty stupid statement - there are laws against misrepresentation.
i think it also depends on the weather nhg
HA! low-blow
Well it is almost done. Not that i'm on it anymore. Thank goodness.
Am keeping my ear to the ground to see if anything worthwhile pops up in Sydney, in the meantime, almost finished my deck. I'm more a numbers and managing kinda guy, am loving getting more hands on!!!
Ditto. Worked for Lend Lease at the Bond building. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Though looking back, how I managed to stand in line for the train hurts my head.
Now that i'm back in Sydney, I would much prefer to work in the outskirts.
Under quoting is illegal in Victoria and anyone who follows the Melbourne real estate market can tell you how scrupulously real estate agents comply with that law.
It's the pronoun before the lie.
