3 ms·

That website made me feel sad; seems they’re embattled, and really have a fight on their hands to stop the parkland turning into suburban parking and retail

nl 5y ago
The Adelaide parklands association is one bunch of NIMBYs who you don't want to tangle with. Every single maintenance shed is the collapse of the parklands. It's not worth the fight.
- CraigJPerry 5y ago
  They have got something worth protecting though. It’s A really liveable city and the parks are a part of that. Adelaide city centre is plenty big enough for retail, business and entertainment already and it’s still a walkable size rather than too sprawling. The parkland nearby the city centre gives a really nice vibe to the city and it suits it. As you’re flying into Adelaide in there’s a strong sense of flying into somewhere rural - it’s more than the article’s point about the lights scattered through residential areas. The geography is quite flat, the buildings very low but mostly it’s the vast openness beyond Adelaide.
  - NeoVeles 5y ago
    Seeing as the businesses in the south end have practically died over the last few years - they can redevelop there rather than the park lands. ;) The park lands and the botanical gardens are an absolute treasure that should be preserved. Dont turn the place into another Melbourne or Sydney.
    - steve_taylor 5y ago
      The southern and western parts of the CBD are really under-developed. Single storey buildings are the norm.
  - lmm 5y ago
    If it's anything like the London greenbelt then it's counterproductive. It just pushes the urban sprawl to the far side, and meanwhile housing gets ever more expensive while a bunch of prime land is tied up in barely-used golf courses and parks. I've moved to Tokyo which takes the opposite approach - indefinite sprawl, barely regulated at first - and the result is actually a city that's much more pleasant and walkable. Small parks mixed among the housing, where they can actually be used, are much better than a big ring of parkland that only the rich can even take the time to visit.
    - Reason077 5y ago
      London still has large amounts of "brownfield" low-value industrial land as well as low-quality, low-density suburban housing that is often close to existing, under-used infrastructure. We are much better off making better use of that existing land to build walkable/cycle-able neighbourhoods that are well served by public transport. Expanding into the greenbelt is just lazy development that would increase London's existing problems (car traffic, air quality, sprawl). ... and there are plenty of small neighbourhood parks in London! I can't imagine that you're ever more than 5-10 minutes walk from one.
      - lmm 4y ago
        > London still has large amounts of "brownfield" low-value industrial land as well as low-quality, low-density suburban housing that is often close to existing, under-used infrastructure. We are much better off making better use of that existing land to build walkable/cycle-able neighbourhoods that are well served by public transport. It's not either/or. At the level of housing demand that London has, we need to build everywhere. > Expanding into the greenbelt is just lazy development that would increase London's existing problems (car traffic, air quality, sprawl). There's no reason building in the greenbelt would be worse for car traffic or air quality - indeed there are quite a few places where there's already a railway or underground station, but no houses get built because it's greenbelt. > ... and there are plenty of small neighbourhood parks in London! I can't imagine that you're ever more than 5-10 minutes walk from one. Clearly you've never been to Tottenham. (There was a "green" on paper, but it's just a square of grass next to a main road. The marshes are lovely if you can get out to them, but they weren't somewhere you could stop off on the way home from work).

nl 5y ago

The Adelaide parklands association is one bunch of NIMBYs who you don't want to tangle with. Every single maintenance shed is the collapse of the parklands. It's not worth the fight.

CraigJPerry 5y ago
They have got something worth protecting though. It’s A really liveable city and the parks are a part of that. Adelaide city centre is plenty big enough for retail, business and entertainment already and it’s still a walkable size rather than too sprawling. The parkland nearby the city centre gives a really nice vibe to the city and it suits it. As you’re flying into Adelaide in there’s a strong sense of flying into somewhere rural - it’s more than the article’s point about the lights scattered through residential areas. The geography is quite flat, the buildings very low but mostly it’s the vast openness beyond Adelaide.
- NeoVeles 5y ago
  Seeing as the businesses in the south end have practically died over the last few years - they can redevelop there rather than the park lands. ;) The park lands and the botanical gardens are an absolute treasure that should be preserved. Dont turn the place into another Melbourne or Sydney.
  - steve_taylor 5y ago
    The southern and western parts of the CBD are really under-developed. Single storey buildings are the norm.
- lmm 5y ago
  If it's anything like the London greenbelt then it's counterproductive. It just pushes the urban sprawl to the far side, and meanwhile housing gets ever more expensive while a bunch of prime land is tied up in barely-used golf courses and parks. I've moved to Tokyo which takes the opposite approach - indefinite sprawl, barely regulated at first - and the result is actually a city that's much more pleasant and walkable. Small parks mixed among the housing, where they can actually be used, are much better than a big ring of parkland that only the rich can even take the time to visit.
  - Reason077 5y ago
    London still has large amounts of "brownfield" low-value industrial land as well as low-quality, low-density suburban housing that is often close to existing, under-used infrastructure. We are much better off making better use of that existing land to build walkable/cycle-able neighbourhoods that are well served by public transport. Expanding into the greenbelt is just lazy development that would increase London's existing problems (car traffic, air quality, sprawl). ... and there are plenty of small neighbourhood parks in London! I can't imagine that you're ever more than 5-10 minutes walk from one.
    - lmm 4y ago
      > London still has large amounts of "brownfield" low-value industrial land as well as low-quality, low-density suburban housing that is often close to existing, under-used infrastructure. We are much better off making better use of that existing land to build walkable/cycle-able neighbourhoods that are well served by public transport. It's not either/or. At the level of housing demand that London has, we need to build everywhere. > Expanding into the greenbelt is just lazy development that would increase London's existing problems (car traffic, air quality, sprawl). There's no reason building in the greenbelt would be worse for car traffic or air quality - indeed there are quite a few places where there's already a railway or underground station, but no houses get built because it's greenbelt. > ... and there are plenty of small neighbourhood parks in London! I can't imagine that you're ever more than 5-10 minutes walk from one. Clearly you've never been to Tottenham. (There was a "green" on paper, but it's just a square of grass next to a main road. The marshes are lovely if you can get out to them, but they weren't somewhere you could stop off on the way home from work).