Skyscraper City Forum banner

Australia/NZ's most well planned city?

  • Sydney

    Votes: 3 3.0%
  • Melbourne

    Votes: 39 39.4%
  • Brisbane

    Votes: 2 2.0%
  • Adelaide

    Votes: 26 26.3%
  • Perth

    Votes: 7 7.1%
  • Canberra

    Votes: 15 15.2%
  • Hobart

    Votes: 1 1.0%
  • Auckland

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Christchurch

    Votes: 4 4.0%
  • Wellington

    Votes: 2 2.0%
1 - 20 of 61 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,557 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Australia/NZ's most well planned city??


Call me bias, but for me without a doubt Adelaide. The streets are wide and the whole CBD is surrounded by lush green parklands and gardens plus most of Central Adelaide is grid layout. Melbourne would be second, Canberra third.



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,263 Posts
I have to say Adelaide. Canberra's roundabouts are a pain in the proverbial.
 

·
perthistan
Joined
·
7,025 Posts
Adelaide may be the 'neatest' capital city,
but not the most well planned.
The CBD has no capacity to expand.
Unless of course it stays as is for the next 50yrs.

Melbourne would have to be the best planned out city.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,185 Posts
I think Melbourne is reasonably well planned, I don't know Adelaide well enough to really say how it is there. Melbourne was planned from the beginning and throughout it's entire lifetime it seems to have kept with the trend.

Reservations for future freeways that were planned many years ago are still retained, the airport was moved to suitable location many years ago with the foresight that it not be built around, the railway network was expanded and electrified well outside of the city's original metro area, the tram network was retained (admittedly mostly by accident). Melbourne's roads are wide, straight and direct, not just in the city but throughout the entire metro area.

Canberra was also planned as everybody knows. I don't know which city is the best planned but Melbourne, Canberra, and Adelaide are probably the only real contenders. One thing that lets Canberra down is it's total dependency on the car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,557 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Adelaide may be the 'neatest' capital city,
but not the most well planned.
The CBD has no capacity to expand.
Unless of course it stays as is for the next 50yrs.

Melbourne would have to be the best planned out city.
What do you mean the CBD has no capacity to expand?, it has plenty of room :nuts:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,557 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
About 2 kilometres, the Adelaide CBD has a long way from being completely filled. Even if one day it is filled out that would mean taller buildings and theres always the suburbs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
How many kilometres across is the patch of CBD from edge of parkland to edge of parkland?
How can the CBD move beyond the parameters of the parkland?
The CBD is surrounded on all sides.
The CBD is roughly one Square mile (excluding Parklands and North Adelaide)... that is pretty massive, still plenty of space. there are some mid rises just on the otherside of the parklands already though so if it ever comes to it, you could get Satelite CBDs on the fringe of the parklands, or else new CBD districts (could use a northern and a southern one considering the geogrpahy of Adelaide).. but that is a while off
 

·
Put it in your mouth
Joined
·
7,111 Posts
Adelaide, easily.

Moscow is surrounding by the garden ring, and it's still a big city. Building don't have to be limited to the CBD.
 

·
perthistan
Joined
·
7,025 Posts
Adelaide, easily.

Moscow is surrounding by the garden ring, and it's still a big city. Building don't have to be limited to the CBD.
Of course buildings dont have to be built in the CBD.
Of course you can have satelite CBD's.
But if you read my main gripe its that the current CBD doesnt have room to expand.

In Perth, the biggest gripe we have is that the railway line cuts off the city.
That's why the Northbridge link project is being planned.
Dedicated Parkland is REAL hard to get rid of (nimbys etc).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,557 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
And do you think anyone (including non nimbys) want to get rid of the parklands?. I certainly don't
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
Still has plenty of room, and its much nicer with parklands than without anyway. Would never want to get rid of them whether Adelaide had 1.2 million or 12 million.
 

·
perthistan
Joined
·
7,025 Posts
And do you think anyone (including non nimbys) want to get rid of the parklands?. I certainly don't
Exactly, that's my point.

Anyway imo a well planned city should give more room for the CBD to expand.
1 square mile aint that big, depending on whether your city has ambition or not. *insert blue winking smiley here*
 

·
Where am I?
Joined
·
487 Posts
Canberra easily is our best planned city. So many beautiful aspects of that city and so much room to move for future expansion. It is a pity (like Tyson stated) that it is so dependent on the car - it could really do with a light rail system.
Adelaide second - although infrastructure is letting the city down.
Then it would have to be Melbourne.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
Exactly, that's my point.

Anyway imo a well planned city should give more room for the CBD to expand.
1 square mile aint that big, depending on whether your city has ambition or not. *insert blue winking smiley here*
It was pretty bloody impressive for 1836!! (Still bigger than Melb CBD)

Its good because it will eventually force the creation of satelite CBDS (as the southern CBD is primarily zoned residential, and is unlikely to change) Which helps fight the effect of endless sprawl surrounding a central cluster of talls, much better this way IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
905 Posts
Canberra is a planning disaster. It looks nice but thats about it, its a blight from the 60's at the moment. The only saving grace is that its not too late to save it for the future.

As far as layout goes I would say Adelaide and Melbourne are pretty equal but both are being ruined by poor current growth planning.

Perth lacks a good initial layout but has some really good planning happening now. Although in Perth the good transport and wide parklands are more by accident than planning so that rules Perth out for any awards.

Brisbane is neither here nor there on the long term planning.

Its best not to even think about Sydney.

The NZ cities dont really come across as well planned with the possible exception of Christchurch, but I have only spent three days there so I really dont know it well enough.
 

·
Registered ol' fart
Joined
·
1,632 Posts
I said Melbourne, but could have easily put Adelaide up there instead. Both are head and shoulders above other oz cities.

Imagine if Sydney, Perth or Brisbane had planned CBDs... or planned *anything* for that matter
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,612 Posts
well I have to agree that Adelaide's CBD and North Adelaide are well planned but beyond the parklands, Adelaide's suburbs and sprawl would be almost one of the worst planned cities. The railways lines and stations were put through the least busiest suburbs (eg who/what is North Ad station meant to serve - the parkland ducks), most arterial roads are far too narrow and cant be widened, most shopping centres and strips weren't built near major transport systems, and just look where they put Football Park.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,228 Posts
Canberra is certainly the most well planned. However, yes as has been mentioned many times before, the roundabouts in Canberra are a definite pain in the ass.
 
1 - 20 of 61 Posts
Top