Leichardt, Newtown and Enmore are smack bang in the middle of the northern flight path, yet they are immensly popular. St. Peters, Botany and Mascot are among the ones with height restrictions, but this wouldn't prevent 3 or 4 story terraces/townhouse construction. We should be aiming for modernised versions of this in much of inner Sydney:
Have you actually lived under a flight path? Because I have, and I can tell you, a little bit of distance from the airport makes a lot of difference for both height and noise.
These are the best compromise for density v liveability, and in places with wider streets they prevent too much overshadowing. An approach such as this is perfect for the likes of St Peters, Botany, Mascot, Zetland, Beaconsfield, Alexandria IF supported by appropriate public transport, which would be viable with the density these would bring.
Why would we build residential houses on a former industrial shithole with planes flying close enough to spit on in the least serviced transport region in the city ring when there are perfectly suitable sites much closer to the CBD with existing transport infrastructure? Under your plan Anzac Parade would turn into a carpark 10 hours per day.
Quote:
I don't agree with filling in of the parks. Green spaces such as these are critical to social wellbeing. Can you image New York city without Central Park? London without Regents Park, Hyde Park, Battersea Park? I'm not a fan of Sydneys nimbys at all, but the little parkland we have should be off limits.
Too late to think about social wellbeing now. That has already been sacrificed so bankers can get rich. Either we build or there will be a massive transfer of wealth, future generations of Australians will effectively become economic slaves. Park is not much use then.
Quote:
However, If there were a way to snatch back the huge tract of fenced off land that the The Lakes
Am pretty sure that is used as an emergency water supply for the Airport, but even if it isn't, why the fuck would we build residential housing right next to the Airport?
Quote:
and The Australian gold clubs sit on, that would go a long way to solving a lot of problems and I would be all for it. I wonder if they are still owned by the Commonwealth but are on a lease agreement to the clubs?
It would solve nothing. If the economic decision is to become a service economy (which is a pretty stupid decision for Australia, but it is what it is), then employment will move out of industrial and commercial spaces and into the CBD. The most efficient housing solution for employment centered in the CBD is high density housing as close to the CBD as possible. To go halfway down this path. That is, to destroy industry and manufacturing to create a 'services economy', but not structurally change residential living arrangements to support that would be a economic disaster.
Have you actually lived under a flight path? Because I have, and I can tell you, a little bit of distance from the airport makes a lot of difference for both height and noise.
Yes I lived under one for a brief period some time ago, but it was by no means unbearable. There is usually a trade off for putting up with aircraft noise, usually lower rents/property prices which will appeal to younger people whom want to stay in the inner city but can't afford to rent in the likes of Annandale or Surry Hills, but are prepared for a bit of aircraft noise throughout the day.
Quote:
Regardless, Sydney Park is far enought outside of the flight path to build tall buildings:
Sydney Park is in St. Peters - were you not just trying to tell me St. Peters isn't suitable due to the flight path?
Quote:
Why would we build residential houses on a former industrial shithole with planes flying close enough to spit on in the least serviced transport region in the city ring when there are perfectly suitable sites much closer to the CBD with existing transport infrastructure? Under your plan Anzac Parade would turn into a carpark 10 hours per day.
It wont be a shithole once redeveloped. You might recall Sydney Park was once a massive brickworks and rubbish tip, but you would never know it now if not for the remaining heritage brick chimneys. Anzac Parade would be fine under my plan, especially with the new tram line about to go in. Combine this with a planned limitation of parking spaces for each terrace and your non existent problem is solved.
Quote:
Am pretty sure that is used as an emergency water supply for the Airport, but even if it isn't, why the fuck would we build residential housing right next to the Airport?
There are already thousands of houses much closer to the airport than East Lakes and The Australian golf courses. If you look at the map east of Southern Cross drive, it looks obvious that you would be in for no more aircraft noise than many other places. The Australian is nowhere near the airport (Kensington). The emergency water supply for the airport is Botany Bay.
Quote:
The most efficient housing solution for employment centered in the CBD is high density housing as close to the CBD as possible. disaster.
That is why my plan is the best approach. It combines an increase in supply, leading to more affordability. With public transport support and liveability too, without having hundereds of thousands more people making the trek 30km + to and from the burbs each day.
Yeah there is lots of space for development at Ku-ring-gai, it's called National Park. No different from inner city parks.
Why not just infill every industrial site in Sydney. It's not like we need them. The economy is going to be buying, selling and constructing houses and the millions of financial service flunkies that goes with the financing of such activity. Actually making stuff is an anachronism.
Developers will develop anywhere once the boom starts. If neither the state nor federal government has the balls to push these changes through, dissolve the LEC, fire non-compliant councils, then existing property prices in Sydney will explode. Double digit growth for at least another 3 years barring a hard landing in China or another meltdown in the US/Europe. This is equally destructive to the economy, so as an outcome it is as good as high density redevelopment destruction of the city anyway.
There are no 'ex-commercial' sites in the middle ring. They are all being used for commercial purposes right now. Are you suggesting the government will rezone the land and forcibly move those businesses? That would be interesting. Basically you would move the majority of employment centers out of the city. Why would anyone live in the residences that replaced these commercial centers if they were no longer close to any employment?
As for it being too late to build up Sydney. Well, you should have seen Hong Kong in the 1960s. It wasn't very built up and there were very few tall buildings. Now, it's a different story.
There was an inflection point 2 years ago. We could have taken another road, tightened our belts, let interest rates rise a little to encourage capital formation, worked through the excess leverage and rebalanced the economy. But that road was not taken, and now it is too late.
How long after Abbott was sworn in did he sack 3 department secretaries? Doesn't sound very moderate or centrist to me. He wasn't even sworn in before he was talking about making unconstitutional changes to the Senate by fiat. No, I don't think this will be a centrist or moderate government. I think this will be the government Australians deserve.
Because I was replying to Peter Fraser's post maybe?
Just because you want it to be true doesn't make it so.
We shall revisit this in 5 years and see who was closer.
Btw - there are plenty of commercial and industrial sites in the mid and outer ring that could be used for housing (currently vacant or abondoned due to superseded industries) - sacking 3 people (who are known labor toadies) indicates nothing, it's only 3 people - it's not the national park at ku-ring-gai that is being developed - it's not the 60s any more. HK took their opportunity but it's too late here
There will be more high rise in Sydney but it will be limited to certain areas/development corridors.
“You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means” - Inigo Montoya
Marrickville is under the flight path isn't it? One of the worst, if not the worst suburb for it, now it's going off and almost everything is up for auction atm.
stinkbug omosessuale Frank Castle is a liar and a criminal. He will often deliberately take people out of context and use straw man arguments. Frank finally and unintentionally gives it up and admits he got where he is, primarily via dumb luck! See here Property will be 50-70% off by 2016.
Yes I lived under one for a brief period some time ago, but it was by no means unbearable. There is usually a trade off for putting up with aircraft noise, usually lower rents/property prices which will appeal to younger people whom want to stay in the inner city but can't afford to rent in the likes of Annandale or Surry Hills, but are prepared for a bit of aircraft noise throughout the day.
Throughout the day? Curfew starts at 12:00AM, lifted at 6:00AM.
Quote:
Sydney Park is in St. Peters - were you not just trying to tell me St. Peters isn't suitable due to the flight path?
On the west side of the Princess Hwy is unsuitable, not the east side. It was a brick works, now it's a park, and it can become a high rise residential housing complex. Why is it good enough for Chatswood and North Sydney but not Newtown or Glebe?
Quote:
It wont be a shithole once redeveloped. You might recall Sydney Park was once a massive brickworks and rubbish tip, but you would never know it now if not for the remaining heritage brick chimneys.
No, it will still be a shit hole, and eventually a ghetto.
Quote:
Anzac Parade would be fine under my plan, especially with the new tram line about to go in. Combine this with a planned limitation of parking spaces for each terrace and your non existent problem is solved.
New tram line. So, make Anzac Parade even MORE busy by taking up one lane with a tram line? Or will it go in the middle, and hold up traffic with a dozen pedestrian crossings?
Quote:
That is why my plan is the best approach. It combines an increase in supply, leading to more affordability. With public transport support and liveability too, without having hundereds of thousands more people making the trek 30km + to and from the burbs each day.
The public transport to Botany and Mascot would need to be built. The govt can't even keep the current public transport running, much less build new transport infrastructure. Besides which, they are broke, and if they charge the developers for the transport infrastructure needed, the homes will be so expensive they will be very poor value given their shitty location. There would be no transport advantage of catching a bus from Mascot versus a train from Parramatta, and you would have the added joy of 6 hours sleep each night on top of the absurd mortgage you were paying off. If you are going to build high density housing, best to build it as close to the CBD as possible. Only argument against it is a bunch of NIMBY hypocrites think that everyone else should get high density housing except them, because they are SPECIAL.
barns
22 Sep 2013, 03:35 PM
Btw - there are plenty of commercial and industrial sites in the mid and outer ring that could be used for housing (currently vacant or abondoned due to superseded industries)
Name one.
Quote:
- sacking 3 people (who are known labor toadies) indicates nothing, it's only 3 people
No, it is 3 department secretaries, and one was a Liberal toadie. And it doesn't indicate nothing, it is a very radical thing to do, and is indicative of what is on the horizon.
Quote:
- it's not the 60s any more. HK took their opportunity but it's too late here
Why, because you say so? It would really be the best thing for Sydney. The government has incompetently failed to provide adequate transport to the sprawling metropolitan area. Increasing the density close to the CBD is really the best solution to the housing AND transport problems. Nick Greiner's government tried and failed because they didn't make the density high enough to get economies of scale for building transport solutions. With any luck the current government will learn from that failure and go straight to high density housing as close to the CBD as possible.
Quote:
There will be more high rise in Sydney but it will be limited to certain areas/development corridors.
Because of a bunch of cry-babies in the inner west?
It doesn't make any sense to build high density housing 25km from the CBD. It places 10x the strain on transport infrastructure. The only reason you would do it is for political reasons, and as the government is no longer beholden to the voters in the inner west, there is no longer any impediment to doing the sensible thing.
Throughout the day? Curfew starts at 12:00AM, lifted at 6:00AM.
Why, because you say so? It would really be the best thing for Sydney. The government has incompetently failed to provide adequate transport to the sprawling metropolitan area. Increasing the density close to the CBD is really the best solution to the housing AND transport problems. Nick Greiner's government tried and failed because they didn't make the density high enough to get economies of scale for building transport solutions. With any luck the current government will learn from that failure and go straight to high density housing as close to the CBD as possible.
Because of a bunch of cry-babies in the inner west?
It doesn't make any sense to build high density housing 25km from the CBD. It places 10x the strain on transport infrastructure. The only reason you would do it is for political reasons, and as the government is no longer beholden to the voters in the inner west, there is no longer any impediment to doing the sensible thing.
Curfew is 11 pm until 6 am.
Listen, I don't necessarily disagree with you that inner ring high rises are a good idea, it's just not going to happen on any sort of scale to make much difference and the ones that are built won't be any sort of affordable housing.
Example off the top of my head - There are a number of vacant sites around Silverwater Rd just West of the Para River crossing.
“You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means” - Inigo Montoya
Listen, I don't necessarily disagree with you that inner ring high rises are a good idea, it's just not going to happen on any sort of scale to make much difference and the ones that are built won't be any sort of affordable housing.
It might not happen, and if it does not, the outcome will be much worse than if it did. Employment data just got released, and it is looking very bad for anyone who doesn't live near and work in the city.
Quote:
Example off the top of my head - There are a number of vacant sites around Silverwater Rd just West of the Para River crossing.
LOL, Rosehill. I can assure you, there will NOT be medium, high or any other type of residential housing built at Rosehill. Sydney Water were considering the site for sewage treatment but that is about it. The business park between Rosehill and Silverwater road is fully occupied. But hey, judging by the employment figures released today it looks like the future of employment in Australia is building houses and the Public Service. So, I guess that would be building houses for Public Servants will become the basic economic activity of Australia, so those commercial buildings are not going to be occupied for very long. The problem is, Silverwater or Rosehill would probably be the worst possible place to build residential housing, but I guess we don't need to bother about the details, as long as there are people building houses, we are home and hosed.
A petition to stop the proposed changes to the NSW planning bill has hit the internet from the Better Planning Network, a volunteer-based, incorporated organisation, who say that it favours developers over residents.
“I think that’s a big mistake, I can’t see how the government can step back and not expect that developers will take advantage of that flexibility,”said Frances Bay of Lake Wollumboola Protection Association.
Environmental, social and economic planning were said to be the issues left out, with just an interest in the bottom line; 80% of development applications won’t need community consultation, the video claims.
“The Better Planning Network and our 427 affiliated organisations want a fair and responsible planning system for NSW. A system that encourages growth in line with ecologically sustainable development principles; has at its heart community wellbeing; protects our environment and heritage; minimises risks of corruption and respects the rights of communities to shape local planning and development decisions,” the Better Planning Network notes.
This comes as the proposed reforms received positive feedback from different sectors of the industry who believe they will boost housing supply.
There are currently 4,733 supporters listed on www.change.org where the petition is being hosted.
Here is a copy of the text of the current petition:
Withdraw the NSW Government’s Planning Bills!
In a few weeks’ time, the O’Farrell Government will introduce new planning legislation to the NSW Parliament that will primarily benefit the big end of town. If adopted by Parliament, this legislation will result in the most significant reduction in community participation, environmental and heritage protection in over 30 years. In particular, the legislation will mean that:
- Economic growth will be the primary driver of all planning and development decisions in NSW;
- I will lose the right to comment on up to 80% of developments in my neighbourhood, including major developments such as blocks of residential flats and land subdivisions;
- The Minister will have increased powers to override local planning controls without any community consultation or rights to challenge decisions in court;
- Developers will have the right to appeal development decisions but in most cases, as a resident, I won’t;
- The potential for corruption will be even higher than what it is now.
I respectfully request that the NSW Government withdraw its Draft Exposure Planning Bill 2013 and Draft Exposure Planning Administration Bill 2013 (the Planning Bills) and work with all key stakeholders to prepare new planning legislation, using as a basis the 374 recommendations developed through the extensive stakeholder consultation conducted in 2011-2012 by Messrs Moore and Dyer in their Independent Review of the NSW Planning System.
In 2011, the O’Farrell Government was elected on a promise to ‘return planning powers to the local community’. The Government has broken its promise to the people of NSW.
The basis of the Government’s Planning Bills is fundamentally flawed and despite amendments to these Bills, they cannot be repaired.
I do not support the Government’s Planning Bills because they give overwhelming weight to economic growth and the commercial interests of developers, to the detriment of community wellbeing, our environment and our heritage.
I do not support the Government’s Planning Bills because they remove the rights of ordinary residents to comment on up to 80% of developments, including major developments such as blocks of residential flats and land subdivisions.
I do not support the Government’s Planning Bills because they remove the internationally recognised principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development from our planning legislation.
I do not support the Government’s Planning Bills because they provide the Minister and Director General of Planning with unfettered powers to make decisions without consideration of potential impacts, community consultation or rights of judicial review or merit appeals.
I do not support the Government’s Planning Bills because, as submitted by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), they will create a significant risk for corruption associated with planning and development decisions in the State of NSW.
The Government’s Planning Bills represent the most significant reduction in community participation and environmental and heritage protection in over 30 years. These Bills should not be tabled in the NSW Parliament and should never become law.
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy