Skip to content

Unley should stay Unley, say 700.

August 22, 2014

Plans for a major increase in the population of Unley by 2050 have sparked a 700-plus signature petition to Council calling for it to reject any changes to the character of the city, and for a balanced national migration policy phased in over the next few years.

The petition, which will be presented to Council at its August meeting, says that while the signatories agree that all new unley villadevelopment must be of high quality and add to the character of its local area: “We do not agree that it is necessary or desirable to have widespread changes to the type of housing stock available, i.e. by increasing the number of flat buildings or townhouses overlooking or overshadowing private spaces..or each other.People have chosen to have  smaller families over the past 50 years. This is something to celebrate…not offset.

“Although our aim is to maintain (and possibly increase) the quality of life we have envisaged for ourselves and future generations across the whole of Australia and the world, the scope of this petition is the City of Unley.

“Due to economic, ecological and societal constraints we support less population growth policy and a  greater emphasis on enhancing the quality of our environments, while housing only the house-stressed people that currently reside in the Adelaide area. Our desire  to phase in a balanced national migration policy over the next few years should be respected by Council with a development plan espousing truly democratic, fully transparent processes and community-focused enhancements of public areas”

“.

Advertisements
One Comment leave one →
  1. Ian permalink
    August 23, 2014 10:56 am

    I didn’t see the petition, however I agree on many fronts.

    Given that the Gross State Product has been declining for over a decade, the closure of many of the manufacturing facilities and the chronic aging of the SA population it is highly likely that the Adelaide and SA population will naturally stabilise or decline over the next decade anyway. Australia in general is heading into the age of retirement and “retirement” of the baby boomers. Immigration may not be enough to bolster the decline. Either way, if the GSP keeps going south then we’re in for interesting times.

    On the flip side, why can’t the new development be required to display the same character traits as the original buildings? After all, it’s only a facade on what could be a steel and concrete construction. Sandstone clad buildings have great character and higher resale value.

    The new facilities could be required to combine multiple blocks to combine the yard area, increase density and create ‘more open continuous garden space’ or even space to better align active transport options. There are some fantastic examples of this in some european cities

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: