Canberra may be boring, but the “trendier” areas (i.e. along the tram line) have made good strides in moving away from car-focused urban planning. Shame those areas are super expensive.
The problem with Canberra is that it has a large amount of sprawl, but at least they seem to be heading in the right direction. They also have a nice cycle network, although it seems from a distance to be more recreational than used for transport.
The general pattern of town centres off main roads, with suburbs generally surrounded by parks and green space, is a good one.
You can also get around most of the metro area through off-road cycling paths and side streets.
So there’s something to work with.
The problem is the suburbs that were tacked on in the decades after World War 2, which are filled with cul-de-sacs and circular streets.
And because a greater chunk of Canberra was built in the post-war years, a greater proportion of the metro area follows those US suburban street patterns (compared to the state capitals).
*Stares silently in the general direction of Kambah and Tuggers*.
The light rail is fantastic, but it needs to be extended to the south side of Canberra (and over the longer term, to the airport and train station).
The train services from Sydney to Canberra is a whole rant I won’t get into.
In terms of newer developments, I think @philipthalis deserves a lot of credit for the mixed-use medium density design of Whitlam Town Centre.
Really, the biggest shortcoming is the lack of light rail nearby. Hopefully, the network is eventually extended out that way through either Belconnen or Weston at some point in the future.
(Even something like a high-frequency bus to a future light rail station in Belconnen would do wonders.)
Yeah unfortunately that will tend to happen when it’s only done haphazardly. Surprise surprise, people like living in well-defined urban spaces! And will pay to do it!
Plus, I’m guessing that there may have been better public transport and cycling infrastructure, but a lot of the time it’s probably still low-density single-family homes, rather than increasing to medium density row houses and apartments? That’s obviously also going to be a big driver of cost.
Canberra may be boring, but the “trendier” areas (i.e. along the tram line) have made good strides in moving away from car-focused urban planning. Shame those areas are super expensive.
The problem with Canberra is that it has a large amount of sprawl, but at least they seem to be heading in the right direction. They also have a nice cycle network, although it seems from a distance to be more recreational than used for transport.
@vividspecter @EmilyIsTrans The original Walter Burley Griffin plan for Canberra was solid.
The general pattern of town centres off main roads, with suburbs generally surrounded by parks and green space, is a good one.
You can also get around most of the metro area through off-road cycling paths and side streets.
So there’s something to work with.
The problem is the suburbs that were tacked on in the decades after World War 2, which are filled with cul-de-sacs and circular streets.
And because a greater chunk of Canberra was built in the post-war years, a greater proportion of the metro area follows those US suburban street patterns (compared to the state capitals).
*Stares silently in the general direction of Kambah and Tuggers*.
The light rail is fantastic, but it needs to be extended to the south side of Canberra (and over the longer term, to the airport and train station).
The train services from Sydney to Canberra is a whole rant I won’t get into.
In terms of newer developments, I think @philipthalis deserves a lot of credit for the mixed-use medium density design of Whitlam Town Centre.
Really, the biggest shortcoming is the lack of light rail nearby. Hopefully, the network is eventually extended out that way through either Belconnen or Weston at some point in the future.
(Even something like a high-frequency bus to a future light rail station in Belconnen would do wonders.)
Yeah unfortunately that will tend to happen when it’s only done haphazardly. Surprise surprise, people like living in well-defined urban spaces! And will pay to do it!
Plus, I’m guessing that there may have been better public transport and cycling infrastructure, but a lot of the time it’s probably still low-density single-family homes, rather than increasing to medium density row houses and apartments? That’s obviously also going to be a big driver of cost.