Notes on the Bowden Urban Village and Environs Development Plan

Notes on the Bowden Urban Village and Environs Development Plan

Amendment

The Plan seeks to facilitate private-sector infill-housing development in the Charles Sturt Council area.

It is open ended with regards both volume and timing of land supply, since the major development industry players require government assurance on the availability of development opportunities

compatible with their 15 year project development cycles.

For this reason, the Plan foreshadows, and in some aspects, preempts,

principles and objectives for infill development which are City wide in their application.(“As much as it takes, when we need it”)

PRIVATE SECTOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.

It is generally accepted by the industry that there is considerable difficulty in predicting and efficiently matching housing supply and demand in any straight forward way. Reasons for this are easy enough to guess at – the variable availability and cost of finance being one, and in the case of the Australian experience, the long term government and social preference for home ownership as the predominant form of tenure being another important factor.

The Bowden and Environs DPA put forward by the Minister, because it aims to implement the SA Governments goal of providing target volumes for housing production from existing urban locations, adds another layer (or “Overlay”) of uncertainty to the fundamental problems the housing industry has in meeting demand. Not only because (in comparison to greenfields development) the meeting of targets via urban infill is far less predictable, but also because infill housing involves -potentially at least- a transfer of value between pre-existing housing users and new-housing developers. This transfer can take the form of the appropriation of public space – the St Clair development is the prime example of this - but as well necessitates relaxed development controls on overlooking, site areas, car parking, rubbish collection and other aspects of housing sustainability - as for example in the Brompton City Edge infill project, which shows fine grained examples of the problems.

The level of expropriation of value depends upon the relative use-value of the existing development and the infill which is inserted into it. In the case of the Bowden Village site, this is largely a positive transfer,flowing from the developer to the surrounding area since the site is presently vacant and contaminated. At the other end of the spectrum, negative transfers of value can be significant.

The crucial factor here is the conflict between the economy wide incentives for housing production, which are primarily not location specific, and the Governments proposed Development Plan Amendments, which are highly locational in their effect.

It has been reported that the various subsidies for home ownership are of the order of $65 billion Australia-wide per year.* These take the form of first home owner grants, negative gearing and capital gains provisions, and exemptions from GST payments. They are available independently of the geographical location of the housing produced with this assistance. (Hence the experience of recent years of housing production being roughly comprised of 30% “second” homes – holiday houses and speculative investments. The 2006 Census for example reports that 10% of housing in South Australia, at any one time, is unoccupied. These houses in aggregate could be regarded as a “Ghost City” in that their economic reality is divorced from any actual human inhabitation.)

China now has an estimated inventory of 64 million vacant homes. It is building up to 20 new ghost cities a year on the country’s “vast swathes of free land.”

What effect will these changes have? While the economic incentives for higher density housing construction are 'in step' with and re-enforce the property value increases of recent years, the resultant expropriations of amenity could be presented as a win win situation, at least for those able to take advantage of Commonwealth Government subsidies to home owners. This seems to be the position of the State MP Mr Atkinson, who is on record as encouraging people to sell their homes to the developers and trade up to a new home on the St Clair site – outside of his electorate.

Should the unthinkable happen, and the $65 billion subsidy is not sufficient to maintain the housing asset bubble, then with the new development controls in place, the housing industry will require more and more density, and less and less amenity, in order to go ahead at all. In short, there are no funds available for Keynesian 'counter cyclical' stimulation of demand.

The Plan establishes a category of infill development (“Affordable Housing”) which is exempt from all or most conditions of development control. The Plan points to Brompton policy area 20 - and the exemptions established by precedent in that area bordering the Bowden site - as an example which should be emulated elsewhere in relation to “affordable” housing.

By resident “d”

* Reply to criticism: The figure of $65b results from an attempt to update the figures presented in the 2009 AHURI Yates Report. I include an estimation of the present day value of superannuation fund housing investment which attracts taxation benefits (contrary to all economic orthodoxy, but in line with the pro cyclical impact this has on the existing housing market)

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT - NO LAUGHING MATTER

Todays ABC radio 891 discussion  concerning the proposed re-opening of Barton Road North Adelaide  gave the participants plenty to laugh over; but not so much mirth for people who are concerned with traffic management in Bowden Brompton, where a development plan for the Governments Bowden Urban Village is about to be announced.

Whatever ones’ views on the merits of the Government redevelopment of Bowden South, it is accepted by all that it will generate increased vehicle traffic in the area, on roads that are already expected to carry more traffic than their safe capacity, redevelopment aside..

So to hear  Michael Atkinson promote his  introduction of a private members bill into state parliament aimed at increasing traffic on Hawker Street has a sobering effect.
Quote: MA: "This is principally for people coming up Hawker Street, exercising their traditional right  which they had under Colonel Light’s  original plan for Adelaide until 1987 ..”[loud laughter ]”
(the full transcript can be accessed here”


 Mr Atkinson justifies his Barton Road   campaign (apparently) on principles of 18th century common law regarding traditional rights of way. No mention of the considerable improvement to the 18th century laws developed right here in South Australia  in the ‘Torrens Title’. But even more sobering is the lack of reference to a traffic management study proposed by the Charles Sturt Council., let alone any of the implications of the Bowden Urban Village development more generally. For example, it might be feasible, as the Hassell masterplan originally proposed, to have the tram extended northwards along Chief Street, with the possibility of restoring the original tram way up to North Adelaide, thereby reducing the need for private vehicle trips in the development area, as is Mr Atkinson’s own party policy.

Proposed Chief Street tram extension - artists impression

                                       

DEMOLITION AT CLIPSAL

Demolition work well advanced on the first devlopment block (7th-8th streets Bowden)

An interesting wooden framed highrise being considered for the Melbourne Carlton Site. (hat tip to Andrew at Urban Rediscovery

Grocon's 'passive house' apartments to take shape in new carbon economy

notes from the underground…

WIDENING PARK TERRACE – DTEI:WIDENING
”A section of Park Terrace, North Adelaide, will soon be widened to assist in improving the function, safety and capacity of the Port Road/Park Terrace/Adam Street intersection and supporting the strategic transport accessibility objectives of the Inner Ring Route.
The section of road to be widened is on the southern side of Park Terrace between Seventh Avenue and the intersection of Port Road/Park Terrace/Adam Street.
This project will involve the:

• Installation of a third signalised left turning lane between the Port Road intersection and the Park Terrace level crossing.
• Provision of a second dedicated left turn lane east of the Park Terrace level crossing.
• Installation of a two stage pedestrian crossing across Park Terrace near the level crossing to cross both the east bound and west bound carriageways.”

http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-34.907569,138.578045&z=18&t=m

The priorities of the Government are plain to see here. The very first cabs off the rank - before even a sod is turned on the Clipsal site itself - are the new entry lanes being constructed  to improve car access to the site.  For pedestrian and cycle access, the Government is installing a new crossing next to the train line.


photo: sharing the level crossing

Although it claims to be designing an “Urban Village” which will increase pedestrian and cyclist amenity, the Transport Oriented Development at Bowden is a misnomer and should more accurately be called a “Car Oriented Development”.
A good example for the Government to follow is provided by a land bridge in Vancouver, shown here:

photo from The Seattle Times


 
People Kiosk on Vancouver Land Bridge
Wendy Bumgardner © 2008
“The Vancouver Land Bridge has three kiosks along its length. Each provides benches for resting and contemplating the view. The People kiosk celebrates the Native Americans of the region, with artwork representing their culture”
( http://walking.about.com/od/trailusawest/ig/Vancouver-Land-Bridge/Land-Bridge-Walkers.htm )

URBAN DENSITY

photo: Manhattan Mixed Use
From a very readable exposition of New Urbanism, http://4cities.wordpress.com/

Bowden Village: Cars V Residents

TRAFFIC OUTCOMES - BOWDEN TOD
.
With the Bowden Redevelopment Plan due to be released for public comment next month,  the implications for the Bowden-Brompton area as far as traffic is concerned need to be examined. One of the key aims of the project was to establish a showpiece for urban regeneration:

According to one International Expert,  “It (Bowden Village TOD) will be a demonstration place in Adelaide because it will be the first place in the community that is truly urban with a mix of uses – and it will rely less on the car so it is an introduction to the 21st century”.

The Government has been selling the TOD  concept as a way to decrease car reliance, and provide a pedestrian and cyclist friendly inner urban redevelopment. The proposal for 2000 additional dwellings as well as 30,000 M2 commercial and retail floor area and 1,000 employees on the 20 hectare site will have the potential to significantly increase traffic throughout the wider Bowden Brompton area unless attention is focussed on this seeming contradiction.

How have the directors of the Bowden Urban Village  (BUV) Project planned to handle traffic and pedestrian movements within the development and the surrounding residential precincts?

Initial proposals made in the award winning Hassell/PB Master Plan were for a reworking of the old street layout on the Clipsal and Sagasco site. This was intended to increase accessibility to the BUV
along a north/south axis with pedestrian links on the east/west axis as shown in this detail from the
Master Plan:

Also under consideration was a land bridge over Park Terrace to link the internal  pedestrian corridors with the wider area of the Adelaide City Park Lands and the CBD. Feasibility studies were commissioned by the LMC, but it appears that this will be an expensive option.

Unfortunately, much of the Hassell Master Plan designs for pedestrian corridors through BUV have gone by the wayside, as commercial realities sink in.

Hopes are still high for the undergrounding of the Port Adelaide railway line, which, unlike the pedestrian land bridge proposal, will significantly free up motor traffic on Park Terrace, thus mitigating some of the traffic flow constraints of the newly installed right hand turn lanes into the Clipsal site at Sixth, Fifth and Fourth Streets!
The City of Charles Sturt  has determined, as a priority, to:

• Upgrade the road hierarchy classification of Sixth Street and Second Street (between Drayton Street and Chief Street) to collector streets


Under the Council’s classification, collector streets are defined:

Collector
A road that provides connection to distributor and arterial roads from local streets within and through a local area.
This type of road is generally wide enough to provide two directions of travel with parking on one side of the road only. Traffic volumes would be generally  less than 3,000 vehicles per day.


Council has recently “sold” a portion of Trembath Street Bowden to the LMC on the basis of assisting with consolidation of development sites:

6.134 ROAD CLOSURE – SIXTH STREET AND TREMBATH STREET BOWDEN
Brief
This report recommends that Council begin the process in the Roads (Opening and  Closing) Act 1991 to close the portions of road reserve being located at the eastern end of Sixth Street and Trembath Street Bowden at their junctions with Park Terrace to improve development outcomes in accordance with the Bowden Urban Village  Masterplan


This leaves pedestrian access from residential Bowden with a three foot wide gap between the new consolidated lot and the Park Terrace Overpass as seen here:

 

The Council report on the matter refers to the Bowden Urban Village Master Plan: apparently this is not the Hassell PB Master Plan but some other document. Perhaps it’s the proposal now before Cabinet which is to be released next month. I doubt if Council members have been show this document when they voted to dispose of the portion of Trembath street which allows for pedestrian access to Park Terrace:


As things stand, it appears that the BUV developers are happy to prioritize vehicle movement over pedestrian in the planning. Residents are used to the provision of pedestrian links as an after thought tacked on to the real planning issues, after all…




























pedestrian access to Park Lands ~
designed for badgers

View Large Map