View Full Version : Bob Carr's new vision for suburbia


christarrant
December 12th, 2004, 09:19 AM
more suburbs coming up, but hopefully some density and descent architecture which is better than the current crap that is served up in our cities


Bob Carr's new vision for suburbia
By Tim Dick, Darren Goodsir and Justin Norrie, SMH, December 10, 2004

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/12/10/suburb_ent-lead__200x289.jpg
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/12/09/MAP1_CONTEXT_MAP_copy_gallery__550x384.jpg
Every new suburb built in Sydney in the next three decades will be designed around villages and town centres, with the State Government reversing its recent practice of allowing subdivisions of uniform houses.
Announcing plans for nearly 80 new suburbs on Sydney's south-west and north-west fringes, the Premier, Bob Carr, yesterday pledged that every resident will be within walking distance of a shop. "It really tackles the quality of life. We've got to see that in these new-release areas families have got to have walking distance to the shops," Mr Carr said.
Under the new approach, each village centre will be surrounded by a ring of medium-density housing, comprising a mixture of low-rise units and semi-detached homes. Single houses will be permitted only beyond that ring, in an effort to create vibrant communities and avoid the recent "McMansion" suburbs, where large homes sit on small blocks far from any town centre.
The villages, which will have only a few shops, will be linked to town centres, where there will be a wider range of shops and recreational facilities, and buses to railway stations
The plan is an admission that recent developments in north-west Sydney, such as Kellyville, have not worked. Declaring the "McMansion" era over, Mr Carr said BASIX targets would require new homes to use less energy and water, discouraging large houses.
The director of the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Bill Randolph, said "anything that rekindles a sense of community at the local scale is to be welcomed, but the delivery of these new villages will be breaking new ground". But he said using villages to build suburbs on city fringes would parallel efforts by the Lord Mayor, Clover Moore, to redesign inner suburbs to help people feel part of a community.
Professor Randolph said the viability of the village approach may depend on whether the shops are used by residents and become profitable for their owners.
Bipartisan political support would also be needed, he said. "If it [the plan] has any chance to succeed, and much will depend on the details and careful management of the process, then it's essential that the [new government] commission is allowed to get on with its task unmolested by future political shifts. We don't want another Cumberland Plan or Kellyville."
The Opposition's planning spokeswoman, Peta Seaton, supported the village part of the plan.
The president of the NSW division of the Planning Institute of Australia, Monique Roser, endorsed the Government's move away from simple subdivisions towards more complex villages where people can get out of their cars and walk. "All the research has been done on the walkable suburbs [and they] are the most healthy," she said.
But a leading architect, Glenn Murcutt, who has described Kellyville and Albion Park as barren, soulless and "a complete disaster", said the main consideration had to be where all the new residents would work. "If people had to drive, many of the projected benefits may be reduced."

Randwicked
December 12th, 2004, 10:49 AM
So much for the Western Sydney Parklands forming a green belt.

hornetfig
December 12th, 2004, 12:05 PM
History is against them - green belts were first proposed under the County of Cumberland planning schemes right back to 1946 - in every case so soon as they're announced, they're encroached upon.

Grollo
December 12th, 2004, 12:22 PM
Pretty much identical to the Melbourne 2030 plan. I think the only way these kind of plans will actually work is for the government to buy up all of the land in a growth corridor, do a master planned usburb with main access roads, town centre... and then tender out the development of parcels to the private sector.

At the moment there are too many small land holdings and small subdivisions which mess up the whole masterplanned approach.

This is the way that Docklands has been developed and it has worked really well, the same approach should be used for suburban development.

cammo2004
December 31st, 2004, 03:21 PM
...So they insist on sprawling... Gosh governments don't learn.

Shouldn't we dense up instead, or is that too controversial?

Oh, and by the way, they've probably had this in the works for a loooonnggg time. An atlas I have from 1996 shows these areas as potential sprawl corridors.

It does look though that a system of mini-CBD's is beginning to form.

ABS
December 31st, 2004, 05:52 PM
This excellent news. God to see that badly planned cookie cutter McMansion suburbs are gonna be phased out. Plus all the development assessment needed will ensure I get a planning job straight out of uni. WOO!!! :P

Jimmy James
December 31st, 2004, 09:23 PM
My diagnosis is that these cities are phucked, someone with balls should look at Sydney and Melbourne and say enough is enough lets build up. I was discussing this with my father in law the other day re melbourne when we were talking about Melbourne's water supply which he pointed out is under constant strain by new estates tapping into the system, when I suggested they put a dead stop to it and force them to build up the first word out of his mouth was the 'S' word - "slums". I pointed out that only rich people can afford to live in the inner city these days, the slums have moved out to the suburbs, god even Corio on Geelong's northside, where bare paddocks (and a McManision!) are visible from my back fence has a housing commission locality known as Rosewall which is considered so rough that locals have renamed it The Bronx!

But none of these governments are brave enough to put the brakes on sprawl. If I were Carr I would draw a line around Wollongong or Newcastle, give it ten years and see what happens, then if the result is good do the same for Sydney.

Macca-GC
January 4th, 2005, 03:14 PM
Here's an example of the sort of thing: Robina Town Centre

http://www.dnmcomputers.com.au/dnm/gfx/robina%20-%20map.jpg
http://www.robina.com/assets/images/rlcMain1.jpg
http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/image_content/heritage_Robina1.jpg
http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/t_std2.asp?pid=1073
http://www.gcrentals.com.au/images/mcomplex/east/view1.JPG
http://www.gcrentals.com.au/images/mcomplex/east/villa.JPG

Varsity Lakes, a neighbour of Robina. Developed by Delfin.
http://www.quartile.com.au/Investment/VL-aerial-small.jpg
http://www.solmac.com.au/thecape/assets/map.gif
http://www.solmac.com.au/thecape/assets/bg_home.jpg
http://www.centralpark-apartments.com/data/files/Varsity%20Central%20Plan.jpg
http://www.centralpark-apartments.com/data/files/Varsity%20Central%20Plan.jpg

Aussie Steve
January 5th, 2005, 12:23 AM
Robina Town Centre is soooo suburban, I hated it. The outer suburbs of Melbourne Sydney can have that, but DO NOT bring it into the inner suburbs of Melbourne & Sydney. We at least have class.

James Saito
January 5th, 2005, 12:41 AM
These areas are so far away, like 40-50km from the central Sydney.
They shouldn't even develop these lands but densify the inner suburbs instead.

ABS
January 6th, 2005, 12:49 AM
That's up to free market economics to decide. As long as I have a planning job I don't give a shit.

/cynicism

Seriously, these areas are way to far out to actually bother developing. In comparison Brisbane deos have a few large remaining areas of open space within 20km of the city that could ptoentially be used for new housing. However, the SEQ Regional Plan stipulates higher densities of 15 dwellings per hectare for new subdivisions and encorages increased use of infill development. For example an average 800-900m2 block in established suburbs such as Robertson, MacGregor, Sunnybank can easily accomodate 3 or 4 townhouses. There would be no need for onsite management and they could be designed to still offer decent levels of privacy. The SEQ rEgional Plan has also defined a set urban footprint. However, this brings up issues with betterment and worsenment as the Office of Urban Management will need to justify why they selected individual parcels of land to be protected or not. I can see there will be litigation problems as a result from pissed off property owners.

Bond James Bond
January 6th, 2005, 04:00 AM
Sounds kinda like Canberra. Except maybe denserer.