#Proposed: The Boulevard (Buranda) - 16st/61m, 28st/99m, 24st/104m, 29st/104m, 32st/120m/mixed

[Messed Up]

TOD's will attract residents who will want to live there to give them transport options to the city but they will not attract outsiders for infrequent visits for shopping and dining if they expect them to use pt. It just doesn't happen. People will still want to use their vehicles to get there.

[sweetchariot]

Originally Posted by WestEnderBender

Don't these places deliver big ticket items? Let go of your car, fool.

now now, no need to get nasty.

the bbq example may be a bit extreme.. but fact of the matter is that people don't go to DDS stores via public transport, nor do they go to high end retail via public transport.. and this center will have lots of those types of retail.

if it was primarily convinence retail (ie. stop in on your way home from work) then i'd think it was brilliant.

i agree that we need to encourage people to "leave the car behind"... but i struggle to see why someone would visit this center by bus when they can visit garden city (mt gravatt) just down the road and park anywhere they like. by not providing adequate carparking they are either going to: increase congestion in the surrounding streets; or create a retail center that fails miserably. both of which we'd prefer to avoid.

[KJBrissy]

How many people drive to retail in the CBD where there is high end shopping and DDS's?

[Messed Up]

Judging by the ammount of cars that you see in the parking areas of a weekend vs the emptyiness of the buses and trains I would say quiet a few (majority) drive into the city.

[KJBrissy]

And during the week? It isn't as if they don't sell anything then. To me it just proves that if you provide car parks and PT, people will drive, however if you provide very few parks and PT most people will take PT.

[Brissy4me]

Woah!! I just saw the renders. This project will be huge. A much needed facelift for the area. Looks like they will be demolishing houses and shops for this. A prime location though with busway and rail services.

[Brizzy-Mike]

If I want a bbq I will drive to the local big box shopping mall, why would I want to go all the way to B'da just for a bbq. When I go out for high end stuff, such as cafes restaurants, I'm buggered if I am going to take the car and get done for drink driving. I never drive the car into the city, too much of a hassle. Emporium is a traffic island stuck between two traffic sewers.

[Messed Up]

Originally Posted by KJBrissy

And during the week? It isn't as if they don't sell anything then. To me it just proves that if you provide car parks and PT, people will drive, however if you provide very few parks and PT most people will take PT.

Realistically you won't get people who are not from the area to get pt to Buranda. You may to the city but the city is pretty much a direct route along most pt lines. Buranda will require multiple changes which 98% wof the population from outside the area will not be able to follow or be willing to put up with the innefficiency and additional time they will have to allow. If inadequate parking isn't provided people will just go elsewhere. Simple fact.

Emporium works because of its parking and you rarely see people using pt to get there.

[MyFavco]

Originally Posted by sweetchariot

definitely not enough carparks for this thing..

retail is at 1:80, it should be at 1:20!!

I'm sorry but experience tells us that the above is absolutely correct.

No developer wants to finish a development and be left with a a shit fight in the carpark with the Tenants and Customers. Why take that risk? Simply removing carparks is too simple minded.

Anyway, if the TOD concept is embraced then the carpark will sit empty. Then, eventually, the empty parts of the carpark will be converted to other uses. Problem solved.

[Trawler]

Originally Posted by Messed Up

Emporium works because of its parking and you rarely see people using pt to get there.

That's because Emporium's PT sucks. With this one you have heavy rail and busway at the doorstep.

We'll see how it pans out. I'd be surprised (though pleased) if council supports such a beast of a development like this without some drop in density.

[TOCC]

Originally Posted by MyFavco

I'm sorry but experience tells us that the above is absolutely correct.

No developer wants to finish a development and be left with a a shit fight in the carpark with the Tenants and Customers. Why take that risk? Simply removing carparks is too simple minded.

Anyway, if the TOD concept is embraced then the carpark will sit empty. Then, eventually, the empty parts of the carpark will be converted to other uses. Problem solved.

if the TOD is embraced you may also have plenty of people using the centre as a park and ride stop as well

[KJBrissy]

Park and rides are completely opposite land uses to TOD's.

Planning 101.

Either way, you do not need 1400 carparks and you do not need surface level carparks.

[TOCC]

Originally Posted by KJBrissy

Park and rides are completely opposite land uses to TOD's.

Planning 101.

Either way, you do not need 1400 carparks and you do not need surface level carparks.

my point was its highly likely people are going to use this as a park and ride facility as well due to the proximity of the pt, putting added pressure on the carpark

[KJBrissy]

With most of it being underground, and therefore lockable outside of retail hours, and with the surface carparking being timed (I assume), I very much doubt it. They may even charge for parking and offer it free for 3 hours if you buy a certain dollars worth of goods.

[beastjim]

Originally Posted by Aussie Bhoy

Should make a nice change to this view

This was the massing picture from the Urban Design report, its not the exact development, however gives an idea of the size being looked at.




Also I noticed there is a library attached for the second floor of one of the buildings. Presumably that might mean that this group have talked to the BCC about replacing the current Stones Corner library with a new one in this development. Which argues well for an approval of some sort.

[KJBrissy]

They have talked significantly with BCC and referal agencies. I don't think height or density will be a problem.

[Orfeo]

^
at least until community opposition is guaged. i'm getting the impression that the council is open to this project as long as there aren't massive protests.

note that the library isn't a certainty even if the development goes ahead, just a little sweetner the developer has come up. very similar to the situation in Garden Towers (KP) in fact.

[neilo63]

It may look out of place now, but when the Logan Road alignment is built up it wont. It will also be a great visual reference when traveling up Old Cleveland Road. Think of it this way you have spot centres throughout greater Brisbane, think Mt. Gravatt and Chermside so it seems silly to not make use of this site and make it a true TOD. It will also link the higher density around the PA/Buranda and the future skyline of Stones Corner. There are alot of developers who have bought into Stones Corner and Logan Road properties just waiting for the area/s to pick up.

Clearly i'm all for this development, it just makes planning sense.

[peetone]

Yeah the development makes planning sense, but the details doesn't. Parking-Parking-Parking-Parking-Parking, this is the central issue to this development.



Please point out to me where Buranda is? Now think, when this network is realised, there would be ~15 minute frequencies on dedicated corridors (meaning no fumbling around with traffic) - which means that the 30 minute radius from Buranda is ... (someone will have to look up a timetable for me)

Also, you don't place park and ride facilities near city centres, park and ride facilities blight public transport stops. TODs and park and rides compete for land spaces as well. Park and ride facilities are appropriate for outer suburbs where feeder buses and local bus services are uneconomical, but within the 10-15km circle of a major city (cough, Brisbane) the densities well and truly does support viable, frequent, reliable public transport.

Public Transport is in competition with cars. Providing with one, erodes the effectiveness of the other. At the moment Public Transport is seen as the higher moral choice (lower emissions, less-ish noise, improved safety, overall net reduction in social costs...) - but the status quo (political will, current urban character, consumer preference) firmly stands by the car culture.

Access to public transport stops/nodes must conform to a hierarchy.
1st: Walking
2nd: Cycling
3rd: Local buses/Feeder Buses
4th: Kiss 'n' Rides
5th: Park 'n' Rides

Poor locating of park n rides can replace walking and cycling with short-car trips - bad outcome.

Oh and the reason why I'm so 'interested' in this development is because I use the Cleveland Line -> SE Busway to get to Griffth - and this area is something I see all the time. Hell, get the developers to pay to upgrade the look of Buranda Station in lieu of road infrastructure charges... (that's if they adopt a minimal parking regime)

lol references...

Parkhurst, G. 1995, ‘Park and ride: could it lead to an increase in car traffic?’ Transport Policy, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 15-23

Parkhurst, G. 2000, ‘Influence of bus-based park and ride on users’ car traffic’, Transport Policy, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 159-172.

Shoup, D. C. 2006, ‘Cruising for parking’, Transport Policy, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 479 – 486.

Shoup, D. 2005, The High Cost of Free Parking, Planners Press, Chicago.

Don't kid yourself. Realistically very few are going to catch public transport to shop or eat at this precinct. The only people who will use it are those that live or work there.

^Quote from 'Messed Up'

That's relatively true, but the preferred outcome would be people walking to the precinct (representing the majority of users), then people using public transport then at the end, as the last preference (of the preferred access outcomes) private vehicle. The idea of mixing land uses is to encourage walking from nearby areas (~400m)

[GavinC]

Good post. I too would like to see fewer car parks, but I wonder if most of the parks are for residents anyway? The article talked about them being "designated", but not what for. But this is definitely the type of development needed in Brisbane.

Bit close to the freeway though, might noise be problem?