SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,870 Posts
I read about how bad it is to densify inner suburbs, extend outer suburbs so where are all the new people going to live ? ( Your place........hmmm. If you think how many empty bedrooms there must be across Melbourne, or even single people sleeping in double or larger beds. Lot's of room to fill before any development I reckon ! )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
I read about how bad it is to densify inner suburbs, extend outer suburbs so where are all the new people going to live ? ( Your place........hmmm. If you think how many empty bedrooms there must be across Melbourne, or even single people sleeping in double or larger beds. Lot's of room to fill before any development I reckon ! )
get ppl to buy in the outter sticks, but no infrastructure and public transport...likes to take ur stamp duty money but wont build anything as planned....how many of the outter new suburbs are still waiting for their train station to be built
 

·
Rabid Furry Skier
Joined
·
3,444 Posts
At least the streets are not dead ends and actually allows you to get from A to B...

Also, was having a discussion with a friend on large home sizes and I want to know what kind of restrictions there are if you opted to build a small house on your lot? I recall reading somewhere on how councils can refuse to give construction permits to smaller houses due to them being "not big enough", so the regulations effectively forces people to build bigger homes to meet the local planning requirements. Apparently even an average sized house from the 1970's (the typical 3 bedroom, kitchen, dining/living room bungalow, etc) will now be considered insufficient in satisfying the local size requirements and be rejected for a construction permit approval in 2012. If that is true, are there any reasons why they force unwilling people to upscale to large house sizes? I really can't imagine it being an economical reason if it is a burden to the local population...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
At least the streets are not dead ends and actually allows you to get from A to B...

Also, was having a discussion with a friend on large home sizes and I want to know what kind of restrictions there are if you opted to build a small house on your lot? I recall reading somewhere on how councils can refuse to give construction permits to smaller houses due to them being "not big enough", so the regulations effectively forces people to build bigger homes to meet the local planning requirements. Apparently even an average sized house from the 1970's (the typical 3 bedroom, kitchen, dining/living room bungalow, etc) will now be considered insufficient in satisfying the local size requirements and be rejected for a construction permit approval in 2012. If that is true, are there any reasons why they force unwilling people to upscale to large house sizes? I really can't imagine it being an economical reason if it is a burden to the local population...
Not Councils. It's developers who put covenents on their lots to require houses with a minimum floor area. Not sure if it is still that prolific though. Even if it is, most of the larger master planned developments on the fringe these days have a much better diversty of lot sizes, so no need to build a house that's bigger than you need (most people still do, but that's not because they're legally obliged to!)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
694 Posts
I actually like Levittown :D it looks so nice on google street view. No matter what you do eventually Melbourne will extend to the Brisbane Ranges NP and Bylands/Kilmore. With proper planning I think it could occur sustainably. Obviously I prefer up over out but the quality of some developments has me worried in that at street level they are too bland or the buidings use too much concrete or cheap tackly add-ons such as concrete with crater cut-outs..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
I actually like Levittown :D it looks so nice on google street view. No matter what you do eventually Melbourne will extend to the Brisbane Ranges NP and Bylands/Kilmore. With proper planning I think it could occur sustainably. Obviously I prefer up over out but the quality of some developments has me worried in that at street level they are too bland or the buidings use too much concrete or cheap tackly add-ons such as concrete with crater cut-outs..
Maybe be nice to look at from space, however living there is another matter!

It is not inevitable that Melbourne extends any further.

It doesn't need to and shouldn't.

If people really loved Melbourne and much as they professed, they could work towards saving it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,735 Posts
Melbourne doesn't need more sprawl, that's just lazy and easy urban planning to handle population growth. Infill around tram lines and development in the CBD can handle the population growth, as pointed out in that TEDex talk in post #4, a must view.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top