Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Quality childcare in a
welcoming & supportive environment

17 Suburbs for Molonglo

By Jazz 1 August 2007 18

Inspired by this debate over the governments announcement of a million new trees that are due to be planted in Stromlo, i thought i’d dig around and find out how 75,000 people are also going to live in the same area.

Only problem is that our esteemed leaders cant seem to work out exacly how many people will live in the 17 suburbs that will make up the new Molonglo town centre. Back in April, ABC online were reporting it to be 40,000 people, however Andrew Barr announced yesterday that it would indeed house 75,000 people by 2037, somewhat displacing some of those million trees and you would imagine, a fair bit of farmland as well.

Hopefully it will aslo rain lots between now and then because it seems that a new lake is also planned (Residents of woden must be starting to get jelous being the only town centre without one).

CT also bring us the brave words of Mr Barr who goes on to claim that

“the development would set a new standard in suburban design and development. It would achieve greater energy and water efficiency and better links to open spaces and transport.”

which to me smaks of a throwaway political statement to make it all sound so wonderful that people will flock to be the first molonglo residents in 2009/2010

All this of course is expected to be held up with the usual environmental impacts, development viability and timing issues. One wonders if Andrew Barr will also expedite planning approvals the same way his predecessor did in order to alleviate the apparent housing affordability crisis.

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
18 Responses to
17 Suburbs for Molonglo
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst

I used to take my old ’74 Torana across river crossing over a foot deep with no problems at all. If they have 4WDs, well, they don’t need a bridge at all!

James-T-Kirk 11:18 am 02 Aug 07

“it is such a delightful drive down through the crossing.” {Thumper]

Cool, do we get to build a [tharwa] bridge for these new residents?

No, don’t bother.. Most of the residents are likely to be yuppie 4WD owners – From my limited memory, aren’t they able to cross a slightly flooded river crossing?

Oh, sorry – I forgot – crossing a river crossing is not one of the competencies we are teaching our new drivers. (Neither is driving manual cars…)


Thumper 8:35 am 02 Aug 07

Frankly I’d like to keep the open countryside. it is such a delightful drive down through the crossing.

However, if we wish to have affordable housing then the government needs to open up more land, indeed, much more land than they are currently doing.

Of course, more land opened up means more availability and a drop in house prices which means less revenue for the government.

Geez, how did I get so cynical…

swamiOFswank 11:33 pm 01 Aug 07

I don’t want to see that farmland used for more identical and benign little boxes on the hillsides like Gungahlin. Keep the farms and open space.

Pandy 11:19 pm 01 Aug 07

More high rise in suburban back yards is what we need.

sepi 7:45 pm 01 Aug 07

The lake went down over a foot according to the canoeing club.

futto 7:19 pm 01 Aug 07

or high rise units!

Pandy 5:37 pm 01 Aug 07

Wasy to reduce water. 300m size blocks with no gardens.

Mr_Shab 4:39 pm 01 Aug 07

I can most assure you that the water level of LBG went down during this drought Mael. Course, given that water isn’t being abstracted for drinking it didn’t drop back to 32% of capacity or any such foolishness; but it definitely dropped.

caf 4:02 pm 01 Aug 07

Well that’s not entirely true either, I can think of three things that were done in relatively quick time (the upgrade allowing water to be pumped to Googong; the refurbishments allowing the water in Cotter to be accessed and used; and the scheme to pump water from the Murrumbidgee). I’d be very surprised if the water recycling thing doesn’t happen, too.

Anyone who thinks proper planning is a waste of time and we should just go “full steam ahead, and damn the torpedoes” should watch the episode of the UK show “Grand Designs” on the Medway Eco-barge.

Maelinar 2:41 pm 01 Aug 07

The water level in LBG has not gone down even one millimetre in the entireity of this current ‘drought’.

There is more water per person in the ACT when you count the combined storage of ALL of the dams/lakes etc than anywhere else in Australia.

Anybody telling you otherwise should look out their window the next time they cross a bridge.

Thumper 2:33 pm 01 Aug 07

That’s also twisting the facts a bit caf….

Thus far the current government have shown absolutely no interest in actually doing anything concrete about the water shortage they keep telling us we have.

There has been plenty of time for all sorts of real options, as opposed to the standard consultation and planning and red tape.

Where are subsidised tanks for existing dwellings? Tanks and greywater recycling for all new dwellings? How about a new dam? These options could have been introduced years ago, but no, that would have cost money.

Admittedly we do have some ideas being flung around about tanks and grey water recycling on new dwellings and even rumbling about extending the Cotter dam wall.

Anyway, wrong forum to discuss the point and it’s been done to death anyway 🙂

caf 1:33 pm 01 Aug 07

We get continually told that we have no water and that nothing is going to be done to alleviate this situation except for more restrictions.

That’s not exactly true, there’s the Future Water Options project which investigates new water source options for the ACT and is reviewed every year.

James-T-Kirk 1:22 pm 01 Aug 07

“we could call it clonecity” – I vote for “The great sandy dessert” – Where the water wasn’t.

Although, I will admit a new idea is forming.


We could call it ‘evnirocity’ – a land where none of the blocks are connected to any of the utilities – no need for power – they can all use solar (or wind) – No need for water they can all user water tanks, truly supporting the concept of reducing water use.

They could have septic tanks, using some sort of recycling technology.

We would push a real ‘Technical’ angle, by not even providing telephone cables – all connectivity would be via wireless. Wow – The possibilities are endless.

Think of it – a place where the only thing the government has to do is put out the pegs that divide the land parcels.

So cheap too – because the government doesn’t have to provide any of those messy utilities, it can reduce the cost of the blocks, providing visible evidence of a government with a real desire to increase home affordability.

They don’t even need to pave the roads – the true greenies who move in would own their own 4WD vehicles.



Just like ‘Little Burra’ just over the border.

All that waits now, is for the Government to wait for a couple of years, and run a sewer main down the side of the street and charge land owners a fee for the facility – even though they are not connected. – Just like the Gosford City Council.

Limitless possibilities….

Thumper 1:13 pm 01 Aug 07

A fair comment.

We get continually told that we have no water and that nothing is going to be done to alleviate this situation except for more restrictions.

Now we see that they want to increase the population, yet without any additional water infrastructure.

Somehow this doesn’t make sense.

James-T-Kirk 1:10 pm 01 Aug 07

Hmmm – Have they thought about here all of the water will come from –

Ahhh – It’s easy – We will go to stage 8 restrictions.

&^%$&^$& Dumb Government!!!

Absent Diane 11:56 am 01 Aug 07

they should use current cloning techniques to fill up the 75000. That would be cool.. we could call it clonecity

Be interesting to see how much the new blocks cost. Could be a good opportunity to get a new house, and convert my existing house to another investment property.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | |

Search across the site