Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Scopus||Web of Science®||Altmetric|
|Title:||Cost comparison of infrastructure on greenfield and infill sites|
|Citation:||Urban Policy and Research, 2017; 35(3):248-260|
|Publisher:||Taylor & Francis|
|Cathryn Hamilton and Jon Kellett|
|Abstract:||Planning policy in most Australian capital cities aims to divert development from the fringe into established inner urban areas. A fundamental logic underlying this policy of land recycling is that State and Local governments are challenged financially to provide appropriate standards of infrastructure and services in greenfield locations. This paper explores the range of infrastructure provision issues and seeks to identify the actual costs of provision in different locations. Three case studies in metropolitan Adelaide are used to explore the cost factors for developers and government. The study highlights the complexity of analysing the infrastructure cost of different developments which arises from variable record keeping and accounting practices. Nevertheless, the study is able to draw conclusions about the relative costs of infrastructure provision in different locations and reinforces previous studies that have demonstrated the higher costs of infrastructure on the fringe as opposed to infill. The estimated infrastructure costs for the infill development case study at Bowden are shown to be approximately one third that of both greenfield and renewal areas of the Playford Alive project on the urban fringe.|
|Keywords:||Costs; fringe; greenfield; infill; infrastructure; residential|
|Rights:||© 2017 Editorial Board, Urban Policy and Research|
|Appears in Collections:||Architecture publications|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.