The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > What's wrong with this picture? > Comments

What's wrong with this picture? : Comments

By Ross Elliott, published 29/3/2012

New suburbs provide higher design codes and feature more energy and water efficient homes.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
But why, Ross??

Why would you want to build vast new suburbs or satellite cities, especially in a region that has major population growth pressures?

Where is it all going to stop?

It is just so counterintuitive. Why donít you put your efforts into improving the efficiency of existing suburbia instead of espousing huge new ones?

And it is all so damn contradictory. To espouse the virtues of state-of-the-art buildings and urban design is NOT environmentally friendly, or people-friendly, if you are going to just keep pushing more and more of it at us in a never-ending growth momentum.

Ross, I think your talents are being badly misdirected. Put them towards existing infrastructure, not vast new stuff!

Sorry, but I see the likes of you as the enemy of a healthy future. The Ďpack-em-in-and-just-keep-packing-em-iní mentality is just so totally the OPPOSITE to what we need, especially in southeast Queensland.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 29 March 2012 7:38:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted for abuse.]
Posted by Boylesy, Thursday, 29 March 2012 9:08:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted for abuse.]
Posted by Boylesy, Thursday, 29 March 2012 9:16:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted for abuse.]
Posted by Boylesy, Thursday, 29 March 2012 10:02:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What's wrong?

Correct me if I got this wrong, but from a Google Map inspection there appears to be no rail access.

If that's correct, surely a rail link to Brisbane should have been a necessity from day one of the project. It's going to be very hard to put one in now.

This community appears to be totally dependent on road transport. With a projected population of 100,000, that's going to be about 200,000 vehicles. Of course everybody drives cars too, don't they?

Hmm, not my idea of Nirvana - and I'm an avid automotive enthusiast.

On a lighter note, it's a bit unfortunate about the name - duh!
Posted by voxUnius, Thursday, 29 March 2012 10:22:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I agree with voxUnis that a rail line should be a requirement of these satellite city developments, I otherwise have to agree with Ross. They are cheaper to develop than infield, much nicer to live in, definitely the way the future should be. Oh just in passing Voxy, why a rail line to Brisbane? It really is time to abandon the Brisbane city centre, & move it all out to a greenfield site.

This ridiculous fixation with existing city centers is just that ridiculous. Sensible planning would get 90% of the government offices, & the public servants who travel to them each day, out to the Springfields & the Yarrabilbas as they develop. The traffic problem, & the squalor of inner city infill development is fixed at a stroke.

To hell with the property council, & their highrise office blocks in the city centre, turn them into apartments for those who like crowded living, but let the rest get out & stay out. Most of us would rather live work & play away from the place.

I have not been to the city since I stopped having to talk to bureaucrats years ago, & certainly hope I will never have go there again.

The only reason for siting most of our old cities where they are, was their suitability to unload sailing ships, hardly a reason to continue using them as a seat of administration. It would be cheaper & better for everyone, property council members excepted, to get out to some fresh air. Satellite cities offer the best of everything, unless you're a surfer, & the city's not much good for that anyway.

Continued.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 29 March 2012 12:14:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy