Here we go again??

quote='Bleve'Stuart Lamble said:

hemyd said:

The sad thing in the case of the farmer who refuses to sell is that the ever
increasing rates (increasing due to urban development) will eventually make
having a farm uneconomical and force him to sell to a land developer.

Yup. He intends to sell; he just doesn't see any point in doing so until
Jennings has sold off the last block of land in their current
development. Given that those are being priced at ridiculous ($200k+)
levels, that might take a while, and I doubt he'll lose out by waiting
in any case.

I look at the state of Melbourne right now, and I reckon we're going to
be in serious strife when the oil price jumps such that petrol is two or
more dollars a litre. I'm sitting pretty, being right on a major rail
line, but the majority ... *shudder*

I was thinking about that myself this morning. What's going to
happen to all these short-sighted people when we do run out of
affordable oil? I'm tipping 10 years, 15 tops, before all hell
breaks loose. Now we get idiot politicians votegrabbing about
dropping fuel taxes - well done, chump, that'll save you 12 months -
why not use that money to make some serious inroads into sustainable
energy production?

Bring on the nukes .. and don't dawdle on it ...[/QUOTE]

Doesn't it seem so easy the way goverrments and industry are pushing for us to 'seamlessly' switch to nuclear power. All of a sudden, the global warming / peak oil sceptics are now demanding that we convert to nuclear power, AND take all the world's nuclear waste. Nuclear power is not clean and green......enourmous amounts of energy (fossile fueled) are required to mine, process and transport ore, and to build the power stations. Any large scale conversion to nuclear power will soon have us talking about Peak Yellowcake. If all the world's electricity was produced by nuclear power today, we would only have around 7-10 years worth of uranium to fuel it.

Pat

LotteBum said:

I have a lilly pilly hedge which - like most lilly pillies - gets attacked by psyllids something chronic. My nursery dude told me to use Rogor and I did, not knowing just how poisonous it is. I did it once and it killed the infestation quick smart, but I've learned my lesson and now use Pest Oil once every two weeks or so in order to deter any pests that feel like making my plants their home.

Also, even though my yard is very, very small, I have a small compost bin into which all our green waste (and my mum's!) goes. I planted some (drought hardy, of course) plants on the weekend and made sure I improved the soil with compost prior to planting. This makes a huge difference.

LotteBum

Going even more wildly OT - have you *tried* the lilly pilli fruit? The taste varies greatly btw plant to plant, but I've read they can make a lovely conserve/jam whem mixed with another fruit. Another tip for a small yard - get a worm farm. Brill for smaller household waste & dogs won't dig into them. The castings are excellent for mulching/digging in. Just keep the wormies in the shade, preferably in the coolest part. Don't know how wormies would go in QLD though.

Sheesh, another component to alt.aus.bicycle.cats.dogs.gardening......

cfsmtb said:

Going even more wildly OT - have you *tried* the lilly pilli fruit? The
taste varies greatly btw plant to plant, but I've read they can make a
lovely conserve/jam whem mixed with another fruit.

Oh yes, with apple they make a lovely "jelly", ie jam with the lumps
strained out. I think there are several species though, and hybrids or
varieties within those species, and I'm sure they taste differently.

Cheers
David M

vaudegiant said:

If all the world's electricity was
produced by nuclear power today, we would only have around 7-10 years
worth of uranium to fuel it.

This figure doesn't surprise me, given the way we do nuclear energy at
the moment. Much better (from the point of view of energy generation,
that is) would be to set up fast breeder reactors that would turn the
90%+ U-238 into Pu-239, which is a usable nuclear fuel. We could also
design and use thorium reactors; thorium is three times more abundant
than uranium in the earth's crust.

All of the above, though, is predicated upon reprocessing spent fuel to
extract the usable isotopes from the "spent" fuel. This is a political
hot potato -- think "nuclear weapons" for the reason why.

What it amounts to is simple. Our society is based upon the premise of
cheap, readily available energy. We are now starting to reach the point
where this premise no longer holds. I'm expecting a pretty serious
shakeup when the crunch comes ...

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@ to usenet".

LotteBum <[email hidden]>
wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

BrettM wrote:

I can't see that happening any time soon. The government's
answer, so far, is to reduce the standard block to 600m2
(some areas 450m2 is ok). There is no incentive to look at
alternatives.

Our block is just 336m² and our house is 170m². That's 25
(RADIAL) Kilometres out of Brissy.

LH

Some newer developments have adopted a smaller (350m2) and
even tenements (Delfin is doing a number of these) but the
general planning scheme requirement is generally larger
(600). This is down from 800m2 not long ago. Inner city
areas are generally allow blocks down to 400 and more
recently 290/300 but again fairly recently. This has seen a
huge increase in the development of old 800m2 blocks, often
with access issues.

These developers ran the argument that there were a number of
people willing to buy the smaller blocks who otherwise
couldn't access the market. That was 5 to 10 years ago btw.
The blocks are often located to take advantage of otherwise
undevelopable land (in corners or midblock) that would be
difficult to fit a "normal" block on.

But the 350m2 block isn't the answer. It still needs a road
access, water, sewer, power and telecoms. The footprint that
these items take up is significant and since the area
required to service one house is generally the same as needed
for a high rise block of units, you start to see the problem.

That said, I live in a conventional house on a 600m2 block
where the water, sewerage, power and telecoms cross an
environmentally sensitive area.

Cheers

BrettM

"David M" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

LotteBum said:

BrettM wrote:

I can't see that happening any time soon. The government's
answer, so far, is to reduce the standard block to 600m2
(some areas 450m2 is ok). There is no incentive to look at
alternatives.

Our block is just 336m² and our house is 170m². That's 25
(RADIAL) Kilometres out of Brissy.

I'm an Urban Designer by trade (hmmm...probably bad to
admit such a thing in this thread). In any middle-ring area
(Perth) I would generally default to an R25 zoning (approx
25 dwellings per Ha) which specifies an average lot size of
350sqm and a minimum of 320sqm. 600sqm averages are
irresponsible IMHO. And note that I believe that this R25
is the "default" background density - it you are near a
busy road, public transport, open space, a school, shops
etc then you can often justify R40 (200sqm avg) or even R60
(180sqm avg), though obviously R40 and R60 will generate
group or multiple dwelling built-form typically.

This is not to say all planners, developers, urban
designers and local authorities agree with me, but I think
we're slowly winning the war in WA at least. I was at the
2005 ACNU (Australian Congreas of the New Urbanism) in
Sydney in August and was a bit staggered to find
NSW/VIC/QLD seem to be well behind the game in many
respects (no offence intended, but it was an observation
made by more than a few).

Cheers
David M

I see your urban designer and raise you an roads and traffic
engineer as well as town planner studying law/MBA (eeek)

There is no planning.

I agree that WA is way ahead of QLD etc and you are allowed
to offend against our urban sprawl generating regs. I use
quite a bit of the WA stuff.

Believe it or not both NSW and WA have some good roads in an
urban landscape stuff, we don't. But we are ahead in terms
of road traffic noise, I know because I'm helping (in a minor
way) with the WA noise guidelines.

The densities you are suggesting are sensible (to me at
least) and we will see more of this in Qld. The only excuse
I can find for Qld is that we are significantly more
decentralised. Densities that sell in Perth or Brisbane have
met resistance in Townsville and are unthinkable in say
Mackay.

Thing is that many of these inner city areas feature
historical densities higher than the current requirements
(tenements and two bdrm cottages).

Why does everyone now want 4 bdrms, rumpus and study for?

Cheers

BrettM

On 03/10/05 at 20:09:07 Euan somehow managed to type:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Beautiful, beautiful. Come on, say it again :-) Music to my ears.

Seriously I love hearing about people who finally `get it.'

....:-) One down - only one brother and two sisters left to go but I
fear they're completely car dependant lost causes...

--
Humbug

BrettM said:

Why does everyone now want 4 bdrms, rumpus and study for?

Putting on my architect/developer hat...

As far as I can tell, it's some entrenched concept to do with resale
etc. If we keep saying (in WA) to consumers that the only median priced
dwelling product is a detatched house (4 bedroom) or a grotty walk-up
flat (1-2 bedrooms) then people take the 4 bedder, which creates a
market and demand and it all self-perpetuates.

But...if we said you also have a choise of a 1 or 2 bed "mansionette"
(a series of 3 units within a building that looks like a McMansion) or
a 1/2/3 bedroom attached terrace with a rear access garage, I think
people will tend to choose these options in significant numbers.
Especially when they are located close to PT, close to open space, in
inner urban areas, and cheaper than the alternative.

The problem is the "...I think people will..."; developers hate risk. A
stick is needed to provide a driver for these alternative dwelling
types.

Cheers
David M

David M said:

BrettM said:

Why does everyone now want 4 bdrms, rumpus and study for?

the widescreen tv and dvd players?

Quoted message said:

The problem is the "...I think people will..."; developers hate risk. A
stick is needed to provide a driver for these alternative dwelling
types.

<tome_warning>

ever been to london?

2-5 story *un-maintainable* bedsits and 1-3 bedroom flats as far as the
eye can see in all directions. high density, yes, but socially crippling
IMHO. the higher density the city becomes the more 'consumer' focused
the population becomes and the less they 'do'. their homes become a
shower/wardrobe/bedroom then to go out to live. the pub becomes the
loungeroom, wassa kitchen? eat out always!

the whole point of the great australian lifestyle is that aussies "do
stuff". you take away that extra space, you turn them into mindless
consumers that don't "do stuff" in their own home, then they need to go
out to be entertained. this is why we have gardens, backyards and
garages damnit!

now think about the social consequences of that, you take away their
doing space they don't have the hobbies and a means to keep themselves
occupied. this also means that you take away skills from folks to.
think a couple of generations, less with skills and a great hunger to be
entertained. hhmmm, i've lost where i'm going with this but i'm sure its
all detrimental to the surrounding society as a whole. oh, and theres no
where to go to escape 'noise'. people are noisy creatures.

building all this high density accomdation with out keeping the
community feel to it is just wrong, especially when you put big business
into the equation, you need your little local shops! thats a trend we're
loosing in AU. its becoming like SimCity, you drive from your urban
development to your shopping district, you drive home again. theres no
local.

</tome_warning>

kim

Kim said:

IMHO. the higher density the city becomes the more 'consumer' focused
the population becomes and the less they 'do'. their homes become a
shower/wardrobe/bedroom then to go out to live. the pub becomes the
loungeroom, wassa kitchen? eat out always!

I agree generally with your comments, BUT

Quoted message said:

the whole point of the great australian lifestyle is that aussies "do
stuff".

The correct phrase is "Aussies like to think they do stuff". Ever really
looked at the supermarket offerings? 90% microwave warm up stuff.

I live in the burbs and we are almost unique in being 1 of 2 in about 60
houses that have a vege garden. The only other house where anything is
made is a builder that is "rebuilding" his own home. Everyone else gets
someone in to do stuff, even trim the bushes.

Okay, peeps did entertain for the rugby league grand final, but that was
on the big screen TV inside and what do most peeps do wth theie
backyards; stick a swimming pool in it.

But, I agree entirely with your crowding comments. The problem is that
our suburban lifestyle sees about 50% of the land surface given over to
providing for motor vehicle movement from your local street to your
highways. That is one enormous chunk of land.

Kim said:

building all this high density accomdation with out keeping the
community feel to it is just wrong, especially when you put big business
into the equation, you need your little local shops! thats a trend we're
loosing in AU. its becoming like SimCity, you drive from your urban
development to your shopping district, you drive home again. theres no
local.

</tome_warning>

kim

But it is the stuff that was initially built high density that has character. The inner suburbs of melbourne are all distinctly local and have lots of 100-200 sq metre blocks. Strip shops with character, real local differences.

Its not the density its the diversity that matters.

BrettM wrote:

Why does everyone now want 4 bdrms, rumpus and study for?

I hear you. But we didn't think about that in the five minutes it took us to decide to buy our house (we were looking at much smaller houses much closer to town).

Mind you, it's only 3 bedrooms. But it has an ensuite, walk in robe, formal lounge room plus combined living and dining area, and a double garage. It's just the two of us - far too much room.

I agree that 300 odd metre blocks are alright - I don't have a problem with it at all. It's when you've got blocks this size, however, that developers like Delfin need to think of the parks they put in place as more than just big grassy areas to look at and put off leash areas in for dogs. There are none where we live and it really, really stinks. And nothing we say matters because they've already got our money.

LotteBum

LotteBum said:

Mind you, it's only 3 bedrooms. But it has an ensuite, walk in robe,
formal lounge room plus combined living and dining area, and a double
garage. It's just the two of us - far too much room.

Blink
bedroom, computer room, craft room & large bicycle, etc workshop,

Not too much room at all.

PiledHigher said:

Its not the density its the diversity that matters.

Spot-on.

Cheers
David M

LotteBum <[email hidden]>
wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

BrettM wrote:

Why does everyone now want 4 bdrms, rumpus and study for?

I hear you. But we didn't think about that in the five
minutes it took us to decide to buy our house (we were
looking at much smaller houses much closer to town).

Bit like bikes (or scooters) isn't. You do the rational
research then buy what the irrational heart desires.

Quoted message said:

Mind you, it's only 3 bedrooms. But it has an ensuite,
walk in robe, formal lounge room plus combined living and
dining area, and a double garage. It's just the two of us
- far too much room.

I agree that 300 odd metre blocks are alright - I don't
have a problem with it at all. It's when you've got blocks
this size, however, that developers like Delfin need to
think of the parks they put in place as more than just big
grassy areas to look at and put off leash areas in for
dogs. There are none where we live and it really, really
stinks. And nothing we say matters because they've already
got our money.

LotteBum

Some developers are putting more into the green space areas
but the majority of "green space" is put aside as drainage
basins by the way. Councils have previously objected to
developers putting infrastructure in parks because of the
increased maintenance costs.

Recent legislation should affect this somewhat.

There is also a perception that people want/need spaces that
are "almost natural". I like these areas because so few
people use them. You can let the dogs run or lie on your
back reading in the shade and see no one.

Cheers

BrettM

Kim <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:1128458492.25152@teuthos:

Quoted message said:

David M said:

BrettM said:

Why does everyone now want 4 bdrms, rumpus and study
for?

the widescreen tv and dvd players?

Quoted message said:

The problem is the "...I think people will..."; developers
hate risk. A stick is needed to provide a driver for these
alternative dwelling types.

<tome_warning>

ever been to london?

Yes, Glasgow is worse IMO.

Quoted message said:

2-5 story *un-maintainable* bedsits and 1-3 bedroom flats
as far as the eye can see in all directions. high density,
yes, but socially crippling IMHO. the higher density the
city becomes the more 'consumer' focused the population
becomes and the less they 'do'. their homes become a
shower/wardrobe/bedroom then to go out to live. the pub
becomes the loungeroom, wassa kitchen? eat out always!

Increasingly there are a number of people in our society who
want just this. These people will gravitate towards inner
city areas.

Quoted message said:

the whole point of the great australian lifestyle is that
aussies "do stuff". you take away that extra space, you
turn them into mindless consumers that don't "do stuff" in
their own home, then they need to go out to be entertained.
this is why we have gardens, backyards and garages damnit!

now think about the social consequences of that, you take
away their doing space they don't have the hobbies and a
means to keep themselves occupied. this also means that you
take away skills from folks to. think a couple of
generations, less with skills and a great hunger to be
entertained. hhmmm, i've lost where i'm going with this but
i'm sure its all detrimental to the surrounding society as
a whole. oh, and theres no where to go to escape 'noise'.
people are noisy creatures.

Nice theory but....most people just whine about mowing the
lawn. They want the room but don't have time to deal with
it.

Quoted message said:

building all this high density accomdation with out keeping
the community feel to it is just wrong, especially when you
put big business into the equation, you need your little
local shops! thats a trend we're loosing in AU. its
becoming like SimCity, you drive from your urban
development to your shopping district, you drive home
again. theres no local.

</tome_warning>

kim

I refered to two things - medium density (under 6 storeys)
and communal property title. Think retirement resort.

You have your own home (of what ever size) with a small
private garden/patio etc. There is then a larger open space
maintained either by the community or the body corporate (for
a fee) which would include BBQ area, playground equipment,
pool etc. You can include either full service roads (with
carparks at each home) or a central secure parking/storage
area with all internal links being cycle/pedestrian.

You can then have specific sub stations, simplified
sewerage/water and a central wireless hub for internet/phone
services.

Link several of these to sporting facilities, shops and
education facilities.

This is part of the solution. There still needs to be high
density (> 6 storeys), traditional residential and rural
residential. But this sort of stuff should come at a premium
that represents the cost of supplying infrastructure.

Choice is always required. As David M said developers won't
do this stuff naturally, they're risk adverse. And so are
our politicians.

There should also be tax rebates for solar power and water
recycling/rain water supply to housing. Possibly an offset
for market and communal gardens producing commercial
quantities of commodities.

While we're at it how about a tax break granted to hemp fibre
production funded by the cotton and wood pulp industries.

I don't see any of this happening so instead I'm going to rig
a shade cloth over my herb/vege gardens so I can try to get
another crop in the summer (not much can survive the summer
at Latitude 19'S). Then I'm going to see another bank about
a loan for some solar panels and consider whether I have
enough room for some decent rainwater storage. Which is why
I want the tax breaks.

Cheers

BrettM

Kim said:

the whole point of the great australian lifestyle

"The Great Australian Lifestyle" is a relic of an era where people
were born, schooled, played footy, were married, worked and died in the
same suburb. They often didn't own a motor vehicle, or at least one
in which they could transport their whole family (my grandfather was
relatively well off, but with a family of 6 kids he only had a
motorcycle and sidecar). They didn't (or couldn't) make a choice to
drive 50km to do their shopping, get to work, drop the kids at school,
etc. A trip to the beach was a day trip - one left early on the
train/tram and made sure you had enough lunch and cold drinks. This
lifestyle is now, in any capital city of Australia, a fantasy.

What I can't understand is that people think it's reasonable to
"pick and choose". They want the big block in the burbs, but dad
doesn't want to catch the bus to his work, which might be lugging
bags of wheat at the wharf. They want all the big town mod-cons, but
then they long for the times that "life was simpler". They insist
in buying a house remote from everything they need/want to do, and then
bleat that petrol is too expensive and "the government should do
something about it".

The fact is that Perth (for example, but the theory applies to most
Australian cities) is now a big, modern city, over 100km north-south,
and when it sprawls just a little more it will connect up with Mandurah
and Yanchep. It'll then be 140-150km long. And we have a population
of only 1.3M people. And the number of people who commute to work, but
also have to commute to the shops, commute to recreation, sport,
entertainment, doctor, etc simply because the densities are not high
enough to support the services we all want (need) within reasonable
proximity of where we live.

I've got an idea - if you want the "good old days", you move
somewhere like (in WA) Collie. Or Merridin. There you can have your big
block in a small town, just like it used to be. Otherwise, roll in the
density....

And BTW, London is a dreadful example of an old, badly built city. Try
Vancouver...a much better example.

Cheers
David M

On 2005-10-03, cfsmtb (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

patch, snail/slugs hate it! OR beer traps....

Beer traps?

So when any stray Surefoot Stout goes wandering on by, they get
trapped, awaiting capture by the head beer gardiner?

--
TimC
Conclusion to my thesis -- "It is trivial to show that it is
clearly obvious that this is not woofly."