I would get rid of all the low density housing. Low density housing doesn't pay for itself. It doesn't pay for the infrastructure needed to support it. Do mid-density housing, and then you will have so much more space for activities. Mid-density housing could fund all the parks that you've included.


Yes but it’s a suburb in Canberra and most of the housings around the suburbs here are low density.

Adding more low density would only make things worse. "Matching" the surrounding area isn't feasible in this case. You're building a university, which is a hub. Low density around a university means: \- Long daily commutes for students and staff, poor health outcomes and poorer academic outcomes \- Higher prices on campus housing, lower quality of life \- Harder to recruit quality students and staff, lower quality academics, lower university ranking \- Limited innovation opportunities for public/private partnership \- Acres of parking lot for commuter students, campus that bakes in the heat and is much hotter than it needs to be

That is true but I already have commercial/mixed (light blue) use as high density (red) next to the Uni Campus for them. And low density (yellow) on the outskirts further area for families and others for a more quieter area.

I've you haven't already, have a look at some 'Strong Towns' and New urbanism stuff - quite a few good YouTube videos about it.

Thanks will do!

I was gonna say is this Canberra!!

Yep lol, are you from Canberra too?

No but I've visited a couple of times!

A big university should be surrounded by businesses. Private sector wants to be near big research facilities. https://imgur.com/u812jmi

Thanks for that possible version! I do like the increased offices and green spaces as well as mixed used building although I still feel like there should be more low density as it is a suburb after all. Im also not sure about the high density at the upper right corner but other than that I do agree with it. Btw what is the pinkish part on bottom left corner? Another solar farm? Industrial? Thanks alot for your time to make it!

I don’t like visualizations that rely on a key. It is work to look at a visualization, dart over to the key, and back. To minimize this I suggest -make all housing the same color, but the denser the housing the darker the shade -same with natural are. Light green for parks, dark -can icons replace some of the lined delineations? Like a trash can for the tip, or hoof-prints for the wildlife corridor? I have no training or experience in creating this sort of thing. So if you are stuck with industry standards, what can you do?

Unfortunately I’m stuck with using the key that I have and I have to follow it

The Brief: For this task you will design a new sustainable suburb for Canberra using the constraints provided that will include a university and adhere to the 5 planning strategies of Canberra (Compact & Efficient, Diverse, Sustainable & Resilent, Livable and Accessible) Changes: - Removed tram line (light blue line) - Increased Uni Campus Size - Left river alone but turned flood-probed areas into mini lake - Wild Bushland buffer zones around arterial roads and linear green parks (more natural looking) - Converted Commercial Zones into Mixed Uses - Added Connector and Local roads with Circuits and Cul-de-Sacs Overall, my main goal for the suburb is to pioritise green spaces through bridging fragmented nature reserves with green networks. This not only increases walkability but also contributes to the local flora and fauna with providing habitats and wildlife crossings. The suburb also aims to have close proximity to daily needs and green spaces and tries to be as car-free as possible. The Uni Campus is also completely car-free where motor vehicles are prohibited. Feel free to comment if you have any questions and I welcome any feedback! And quick question, would my Arterial Roads (thick white lines) be realistic for a suburb in Canberra or should they instead be Connector Roads? Thanks!

Just curious about the reasoning behind changing the natural floodplains into a lake? When, not if, that area gets the usual amount of precipitation that would flood the floodplains, that water would build up and spill out from the lake, flooding the surrounding area instead. I would opt to leave the floodplains alone, or try to support them in another way. Also, curious what your background is? Not to be malicious, just wondering! :)

Ah i thought that by flooding it into a lake it would no longer become a flood-prone area, is that not the case? It would also create a spot where water recreational activities can take place and where people can just enjoy the lake in general. My background is an Archi student although for this term we are doing urban planning so I’m pretty new to it.

For the floodplains it really depends, putting a bunch more water into a spot where water is supposed to disperse to avoid flooding would definitely lead to worse flooding because it would no longer be contained by the floodplains. I can see where you're coming from for the idea (I think it's a really cool idea!) but in this case in real life it could be pretty detrimental. Cool background! I'm studying Urban Forestry which gives me a lot of a natural/ecological context for urban planning. It's fun to expand fields and try new things, I think it's cool that you're trying this out. It can definitely be tough to try and accommodate every single factor though, especially when creating a plan from such a removed position. Good luck! Edit: I'm not the downvoting your reply to me, idk who is because it's a learning opportunity and it's nice to know what your approach to it was. Lmk if there's anything else specific to ecology/forestry/environment that you might have questions about :)

Ah i see, perhaps I could leave it alone where when it floods, it becomes a lake, and otherwise it’s just a green area I guess

I would recommend sticking with this course of action, yeah. Having it as a natural flood buffer is a good thing + the biodiversity it would support by remaining the same is nice too!

No one going to mention the glaring typos? Might want to change Desnity to density?

It's hard to see what you wants to do for me. First of all it's a jpg, reddit like png. Because of that it's hard to see the scale, or the legend (thanks for the zooms). The legend is a bit small too. Second, by having an areal photography as background, it get's too mixed with the color for me, if you wants to keep it, hide it a bit behind a partially transparent black object. Now for the design : It's really look car dependent, you didnt draw any public transport or something like that because it's not the exercice, and you may write some sentences about it, but ... You didn't draw the paths in the parks. Which could have been a good plus point. I don't think a ring road is necessary here. Moreover, the river although nice, is an urban break (just like the main roads, and natural areas). What I mean by that is that they impact the movement of people, which is something that we try to limit or reduce. Without paths, I can't know if you have created footbridges for pedestrians and cyclists. You can also create paths in natural areas (but no footbridges over roads please \^\^) Does wild natural bushland areas are considered greenways or belt (if the concept exists in Australia). Because I find them quite thin if that's the case. In the south, people will go to your large road on the left, but from the central park of the east side, it's difficult to access it (without car), the distance may not be too big but it's play a role. Maybe you can fix it by adding pathways again. You can break a portion of the circle road in the middle, i dont think it's really impactful to have it, if it's a roundabout it's really big, and people may not use your park in his heart. And i would recommand to add some small shops within the large small density urban area. And if possible, make less use of subdivisions roads. Or add pathways. yes i really wants pathways.

Oh sorry about the jpg I didn’t know that about Reddit. What makes it car dependent other than the public transport and parts? Because since it’s a zoning map I haven’t really added any pathways and I’ll add some bus routes soon. I also tried to make it as walkable as possible with all the green networks although I might have to try reducing the roads intersecting it. About the roundabout, perhaps I could shrink it a bit and place offices surrounding it? I envisioned it being a place where people could have picnics, play sports, relax and overall a big urban green space. About the wild bushes, those by the edge of the road are like 5-10m wide and are really meant to just block the view of the road and help reduce noise while adding to the bush capital feeling of the suburb as it is in Canberra. And I believe I already have mixed use shops in the smaller suburb are too (light blue) Thanks so much for your time and I really appreciate the feedback!

I think it's important for you to learn to understand the scale of your blocks. Just compare what you have drawn to the existing urban area to the southeast. If a typical block is a lot smaller than each of the zoning blocks you have drawn, then imagine how long it would be for someone to walk around. I would suggest that you should sit down and have a deeper think about the key moves that you will do to address each aspect of your assignment vision. I haven't picked up any clear rationale to the way you designated your zoning strategy. A good site analysis would also help inform you of how to arrange your site. E.g. flood prone area - turn this into recreational public space - then front them with the university and high density housing so students can make advantage of the public amenities they offer, etc. Can we link the open spaces up so it creates a coherent network where people can cycle from where they live to the university? How does the university link up with the existing public transport?

Those Cul de sac and loops will lock the land use into low-density, car centric housing forever. It also limits alternate routes to avoid clogged arterials. 30 years from now you won't know what's needed in this neighborhood it will need to change in ways we can't fully anticipate. Go ahead and complete the connections, so someone living on that low-density, residential parkway doesn't have to walk around the entire neighborhood to just get to the other side of the block, where existing Canberra is. Let the people decide when to change land use policies, not the prescriptive street plans that leave the neighborhood without a choice.

Why is there low density housing that close to offices/commercial precincts? I’d also have high density surrounding the uni and busier built up commercial zones, with low density as it fans out to the outer undeveloped/natural areas.

That’s pretty much what’s already happening with high density and commercial surrounding uni and spreading out, sorry if my map isn’t clear

This is terrible. Have you even gone to a uni before

Can't even spell density right. Lolol quit now

No constructive criticism? No advice? No pointers? You could, at the very least, provide some sort of insight into the design and not just comment pure negativity. It's clear that OP is doing this to try something new, why not try and help support them?

Just wondering, what program did you use to make this?

Photoshop why?

Just off the cuff, I wouldn't specifically plan for or encourage low density housing in what could be a bustling neighborhood

That is true and the population will be around 5k although I feel like it still needs to be a “suburb” so I can’t have most housing be mid and high density especially taking into account the location which is Canberra where it’s suburbs are all low density.

Having a small population isn't a reason to build low density housing. There's not really a logical reason to think: "thank goodness these houses are spread out because there are so few people" It works toward the negative potentiality for future investments in cycling and pedestrian infrastructure, and for the area to continue to offer affordable housing later on. I would add that especially considering it's for a sustainability course, it is odd to want to organize the neighborhood inefficiently for the apparent sake of perpetuating how things had always been in the past.

Yes but in the suburbs in Canberra, they’re really low density with stand alone houses and townhouses. Like 60-70% of housing is low density and so it’s just part of the Canberra neighbourhood with how quiet and peaceful it is.

Higher density does not mean it will be less peaceful. In fact, it would decrease traffic noise and potentially improve air quality. One thing that somewhat frustrates me in planning is when people argue for the status quo but doing so without making any argument beyond "that's just how things go." That's very often not good planning and it certainly isn't sustainable to put single family units between the university and higher density residential blocks. I can't think of any good logic for your position and yours seems to be that the area is already low density. Well, you're making a development plan, not reshuffling tje already existing building stock. I see that others here have made very similar points but you really want low density housing to scatter what could be a pretty thriving and pleasant area. Up to you, but i don't think this idea would pass muster in any serious planning department.

I would check out some of these precinct structure planning guidelines. It might give you a few ideas. https://vpa.vic.gov.au/project/psp-guidelines/

Thanks