Cost comparison of infrastructure on greenfield and infill sites

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.

澳大利亚各州首府的规划政策，大多将开发项目由城市边缘转向成熟的市中心。这种土地再利用政策背后的基本逻辑是，在未开发地区提供充足的基本设施和服务对州政府和地方政府造成较大的财政压力。本文研究基础设施供给的各种问题，以便确定不同地点的成本。我们通过阿德莱德市的三个案例，探讨开发商和政府的成本因素。研究凸显了分析开发项目基础设施成本的复杂性，因为每个项目的档案和记账方法各不相同。不过，研究依然能够对不同地点基础设施供给的相对成本做出结论，并证明此前研究得出的结论，即城市边缘地区基础设施供给成本高于市中心。位于市中心的鲍登开发项目，其基础设施成本仅为城市边缘Playford Alive 项目（不论是新建区域还是再建设区域）的三分之一。

Keywords:

• Costs
• fringe
• greenfield
• infill
• infrastructure
• residential