Project | Perth Waterfront | Urban Renewal

[docker]

so let's see what the incoming liberal government will end up doing with this, especially with the revised Landcorp plans being released soon

old thread (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=582708)

Perth Waterfront website (http://www.perthwaterfront.com.au/index.php)
the current plans and presentation (http://www.perthwaterfront.com.au/map.php)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nndiHN_kh98&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nndiHN_kh98&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

international thread: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=582156
national thread: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=455625

[`dlskt]

Daww..:(

[perthgazer]

I don't think we will be seeing the revised Landcorp plan anytime soon now

[docker]

Daww..:(

what?

[Auxodium]

never mind him docker...

I honestly cant see this going ahead, so expect this one to be put on ice until next election...

[chrisaus]

thanx aux no one new that.....

[nazor]

it was never going to start untill 2011/2012 anyway?!

[jackso]

Planning and legislation was set to take at least 18/24 months I think, so it sets it back a long way.

[Scraperfan]

sad to also see the original 18 esplanade in that video too.

it shall now always remain a fantasy vision in every way, besides bhp of course.

i really think they should make tracks with the shoreline alterations. building heights can always be changed over time, its the basic canvass layout we need to start working on and what we need to get right from the very start.

i sincerely hope that the inlet still forms a part of any new liberal plan.

[Auxodium]

but you have to remember that the ball would of started to be in motion now for it to start for a 2012 date, but i expect that to be pushed back further

[Scraperfan]

landcorp will brief the new government on all the work done so far and probably plead their case for it to be continued.

the ball has been rolling only in design funding and design work aux.

i think landcorp may be partially successful in laying the case that theyve done all this work, so the revised plan willprobably contain many elements of the original, just with much less highrise.

anyway, will have to wait and see. i dont think this will be one of their priorities for the fisrt 100 days.

landcorp may also have a contract allowing them to continue their work unabated for now.

[WAuzzie]

FP must lobey the gov to do this thing.
cant stress it enough.

[samboy]

We can't even get the stupid Sapphire clock up, I really can't get terribly excited about the waterfront.
PS: The station entrance has been covered with a giant tarp for months just to give you some perspective :lol:

[desperaterobots]

I think that tarp has to do with dodgy waterproofing in the ceiling, not the clock, but yes, you've got to worry when we can't get a fucking roof right. :P

[samboy]

I think that tarp has to do with dodgy waterproofing in the ceiling, not the clock, but yes, you've got to worry when we can't get a fucking roof right. :P


yeah i know...2 different issues but I was just trying to put it all in perspective ;)

[Citystyle]

The Liberals will fail hard folks. Labor will be back in 2012 and the Vision will be ready for the budget. I don't expect anything other than the revised Landcorp Vision to go ahead, nor should Future Perth allow any sub standard proposal to gain fruition. How about we suggest to the new Premier that he build his legacy around the northbridge link. That way he keeps his conservative hands away from the foreshore.

[Australiasia]

:dance2: This project will be shelved!

The dollars are heading to the bush..............to the wild blue yonder........ giddup.

[Dilaz89]

No doubt FP will be having talks with the government before they go any further.

[samboy]

you lot are seriously worst than TT. One lost election and you're acting like it's the end of civilization. Man on man I honestly thought there was a little more maturity here than the avg age would indicate. So much freakin drama.

[WAuzzie]

this project is large, but mostly private sector funded.
the government only has to decide how it wants it, a put a little money into it.

[Dilaz89]

you lot are seriously worst than TT. One lost election and you're acting like it's the end of civilization. Man on man I honestly thought there was a little more maturity here than the avg age would indicate. So much freakin drama.

gee, thanks for the encouragement. You should be happy people give a fuck but no, you'd rather sit on you cynical arse and say things wont happen because thats just how it is.

We've all accepted that Labor lost and now it's time to work on the new government for the best outcome.

[samboy]

gee, thanks for the encouragement. You should be happy people give a fuck but no, you'd rather sit on you cynical arse and say things wont happen because thats just how it is.

We've all accepted that Labor lost and now it's time to work on the new government for the best outcome.

You don't sound like you've accepted it. You're mistaking 'giving a fuck' with 'whinging that all is going to shit' on the 1st day after the election. I give a fuck as much as the next person but you have to pick your battles and more importantly wait for FACTS to emerge before shooting from the hip.

It's a all good being passionate and enthusiastic (and somewhat misguided imo) and the city needs that but take a breath, acknowledge what's happened and wait to see some policies then you can address the issues based on reality.

[Perth4life]

oo dilaz getting hostile since he's no longer mod.

[Dilaz89]

Well they're not off to a good start. Can you deny that?

Misguided how? I am simply optimistic about the future and I still hold that view, even now the Liberals are in government.

I will watch the events of the next few years closely and take things as they come. Until they happen, we can only speculate given what we know now.

[samboy]

Well they're not off to a good start. Can you deny that?

Misguided how? I am simply optimistic about the future and I still hold that view, even now the Liberals are in government.

I will watch the events of the next few years closely and take things as they come. Until they happen, we can only speculate given what we know now.

How can they be off to a bad start and they HAVEN"T even started yet. Haven't been sworn in.

Optimistic about the future? Mate read your posts after labor's loss, optimism is not how I describe it.

If anything I'm optimistic that the future is not as BAD as some of you are making out to be.

I'm guessing this is your first loss since you've been at voting age which may explain your reaction. But some of you guys have lost all objectivity.

[Dilaz89]

Ofcourse I still think it was wrong but you move on.

And yeah, pissed of majorly yesterday but that was yesterday.

It's pretty fair to say that the future isn't looking as rosy as it was a month ago but I am optimistic that we will do everything we can to keep the waterfront alive.

[dallastexjr]

I hate Today Tonight.
I've lived through many elections.
I'm not into dramas.

I still think the Libs will fuck up Perth's once rosy infrastructure future.

[Auxodium]

you lot are seriously worst than TT. One lost election and you're acting like it's the end of civilization. Man on man I honestly thought there was a little more maturity here than the avg age would indicate. So much freakin drama.


lol i agree, funny how i said the libs could win and being told it was impossible lol, but i mean come on it isn t the end of the world fellas.

I hate Today Tonight.
I've lived through many elections.
I'm not into dramas.

I still think the Libs will fuck up Perth's once rosy infrastructure future.

i honestly dont think it will be that bad dallas, i think that we just might see many projects on ice and the state frozen for 4 years until nect election.

[WAuzzie]

do you really think 4 years is that short quick and takes no time out of your life spans.
its a long fucking time. i dont want the state on hold.
ppl power plays a big part in this country and especially perth where every nimby has a voice. which is why we as fp can bitch publicly to the gov and try steer it the way we'd like it go to.
we already know what the libs wanna do, their history record, and their election promises, its more then enough to get unhappy about.

[Auxodium]

Goran 4 years will fly past, christ 2001 seemed just like last week. Sure it will be frustrating but i believe being in a liberal state of limbo and project frozen is only a good thing.

[WAuzzie]

a good thing? umm okay lol.
4 years ... dude. honestly. unless ur a bum and see every single year of your life the same for the rest of your life 4 years is a long time.
most people want to see progres, with their lifes, with their surroundings.
its in the human nature to seek better, people will leave.

[Scraperfan]

4 years is ages, but it wont seem like nothing is happening.

dont forget, everything in the last 8 years will now be able to be seen over the next 4 years as everything that has been planned comes online.

so with a glut in policy and more planning, the visible glut will come in 2016 as there wont be much in the pipeline coming online.

theres always a lag effect in which the government that put it in place, is no longer in power to bask in the glory. this is what carpenter was alluding to when he said colin barnett has inherited a lot.

[Auxodium]

im no bum time does go past quickly when you put your mind to it and achieve the results you want.

Sadly for a state perspective there hasnt been much change over the last 10 years, and i am being honest here. sure there has been a slight improvement but nothing has really changed a great deal. but i think beyond 2012 i think that there are some big changes afoot, but dont expect anything from 2009 to 2012

[Macorules94]

whens the next election?

[desperaterobots]

Without wanting to derail this Waterfront thread into a politics thread too much, the next four years will seem pretty active even if nothing new happens. Perth Arena, 140William, the new BankWest tower, Century City, Bishops See, Equus, the juggernaut of BHP, and all the rest... they'll all be rising and completing. Even without action on the waterfront (if the Liberals do completely fuck it up) the city will definitely be changing.

[Homeroids]

See my comments in The Majopr stadium thread. You can't really put all your angst towards Barnett at this stage. It was not he that designed the royalties for the regions scheme. That money has to come from somewhere and if Carpenter was in the same "behind the barrel of a gun" situation as Barnett is now (thanks to Grylls), he too would be looking at some pretty creative accounting.

In saying that, I don't get the negativity of Barnett towards the Waterfront project. Maybe he needs to study the Landcorp proposal more. I would have thought he has had the time but possibly in the past, less interest that what is demanded on him now, since he is Premier. Anyway, this project is meant to self fund. If that is the case, this has no conflict with the royalties for regions scheme. So, assuming this fact, Barnett's opposition to this project must be philosophical based. And with that, I have a huge issue.

[desperaterobots]

His problem with it does appear to be ideological in nature. I really hope he can be convinced of the need for this project.

[Ipggi]

I wonder if building a very long water trench, would that be considered part of that rural investment?

[Citystyle]

you lot are seriously worst than TT. One lost election and you're acting like it's the end of civilization. Man on man I honestly thought there was a little more maturity here than the avg age would indicate. So much freakin drama.

If i remember the Liberal Party was only elected because people got the amazing idea that the state was falling to pieces and the apparent lack of welfare distribution thought the boom! :lol:

People don't seem to know what they want? In this election there existed far to many contradictions. Electing a party that has rejected the Reid Report for instance will only stretch our health care system further, but as usual the people have been told by the media that they can have the cake and eat it too, a party that is pro privatization and liberalization in it's constitution has been unable to run a Liberal policy platform because it divides conservative voters.

For that last reason stated above, i can't support the Liberal parties supposition, they compromise on there only advantage to ensure some political relevance. It produces poor policy and poor community outcomes that pander to a small conservative group of voters.

Despite the fact nobody seems to want privatization with an electorate divided on the level of Liberalization of things such as trading hours, they voted for the Liberal party and for that reason we can count on them being slow on economic reforms (aka deregulation of trading hours means more investment), especially in a time where inflation is high and liberalization could overheat the economy further.
That's why the center left of the Labor Party would and should have been a happy compromise, yet amazingly they had serious problems portraying their message to the public.

I will say the following too bring a brighter light on things.
The Liberals are not as conservative as the base that they pander towards.
The Nationals have an open minded leader.
And the Labor Party has not changed dramatically, despite the Left failing to take control of the state during the election. (I think this was the reason for such bias in the media).

The Liberals pander to multiple ideological forces for a base vote, they will lose both Liberals and Conservatives depending on there stripes to the Labor party irrelevant of how good they run government.

Hemeroids, Barnett ran a policy of scrapping the waterfront project in favor of something more low key into the election. Now if i had the interests of the state at heart i would have ran that on the front page of my newspaper rather than page six.

[Sanj]

Hemeroids, Barnett ran a policy of scrapping the waterfront project in favor of something more low key into the election. Now if i had the interests of the state at heart i would have ran that on the front page of my newspaper rather than page six.

haha was that on purpose?

[Homeroids]

Tony Rutherford, once again gets a full page spread in The West advocating, quite openly this time, the City Vision waterfront proposal.

This time, he has also taken to task the Y generation (or is it 'Z' which I hear mentioned with a sense of facetiousness) and thrown in some allusions to age and wisdom. The use of the word "civilised" for the Cityvision idea as opposed to Buck Rodgers for the 'Y' generation proposal. And then, has the audacity to say this should not be a generational divide, yet commits the sin himself, disguised subtlety in his clever pontification.

The reality for Tony Rutherford?

Lisa Scaffidi, Lynda Dorrington, Peter Newman, Landcorp. These people and the design corporation, Landcorp, are not exclusively 'Y' generation.

Wisdom - Wisdom is NOT an attribute exclusive to the aged. I am the first to admit that 'experience' and age go hand in hand. In many cases, wisdom attaches itself to this experience, but not always.

The baby boomer generation created a Perth with a "vision" beginning in the idea of the Freeway. This same generation peaked in it's "vision" for Perth by demolishing the majority of beautiful buildings along St Georges Trc. Is this wisdom too? Ahh, if only we had foresight perhaps?

Future Perth is not about age and 'Y' generation, although it sympathises with the realisation that the "y" generation want a city they can call home. Future Perth needs and wants all ages to be represented or how can it ever hope to have a balanced and wise view on what vision is best for Perth? I say this knowing too well what an exclusive limited number of thinkers can do under the guise of a structure that invites youth into their organisation but not endorsing them into the inner circle.

Flippantly dismissing surveys that support the "buck Rodgers" vision, by arguing that the actual overall perception to this vision is negative, and basing this on no evidence is arrogant.

Now here in lies wisdom - understanding that the Landcorp vision is presented to spark healthy debate, and that it is merely visionary. It is not literal. The height of buildings are open to debate, the shape of an island are open to debate. They have served their purpose - to get this project on the agenda. But in saying that, do not kill the heart of this visions intent. That intent is vitality, boldness, doing something 'out there' and leaving our comfortable boundaries of so called civility. It is about saying "yes".

Is it a "Y" generation thing to have a website to share our vision? Not necessarily. Perhaps it's also a prudent thing to have. Yes it can take time to accept change and acceptance of change is the other pillar to wisdom. The first pillar being experience. It took some time for City Vision to have a thing known as a website :). This may sound patronising. Maybe Tony needs to read his article once more.

[samboy]

can I have the above in layman english please.... my head hurts :)

[desperaterobots]

Brevity is the soul of wit god damn it. Get to the point Homer. Stop asking yourself rhetorical questions too. :P

[Homeroids]

lol - it's a forum response and I was not trying to be witty :). But I get your point.

[ryan79]

Hey, I like Homies posts. They are entertaining and accurate to my point of view.

[samboy]

Don't get me wrong I like them too and generally very well written especially within the context of an Internet forum but in this instance my brain started hurting (which may also say something about me of course)

[ryan79]

Oh well I got it :lol:

[desperaterobots]

"...and then, has the audacity to say this should not be a generational divide, yet commits the sin himself, disguised subtlety in his clever pontification."

Sorry, but this could not have been written any more verbosely. lol.

[Dilaz89]

Tony Rutherford needs to STFU!

[desperaterobots]

I think we should all write letters to the west. homer can do the long one, i'll do the one that gets printed in the 'In Short' section. :P

[Homeroids]

"...and then, has the audacity to say this should not be a generational divide, yet commits the sin himself, disguised subtlety in his clever pontification."

Sorry, but this could not have been written any more verbosely. lol.

I agree:

Tony Rutherford says patronisingly that there is a generational divided and then commits the sin himself.


nb: I thought pontificating was a good choice of word. Maybe not a commonly used word but it explains Rutherford coming across as if he thinks himself infallible.

[desperaterobots]

Accusing someone of pontificating is great, and I think totally appropriate here. But a "subtle disguise" is a redundancy, and why define his pontification as "clever" when you're trying to say he was wrong pontificate in the first place?

Sorry I do some copy-writing and this stuff irritates me. ;)

[Homeroids]

I profusely apologise. Does that help? :)

[desperaterobots]

You needn't apologise profusely. My preference - a profound one at that - would be for you to preface your own predisposition for pontification with a prudent but precise forewarning that a your prolific vocabulary was about to be dashed upon the quivering wet stones of our beady wee eyes.

Seriously, have you see the episode of Blackadder the third and the guy who just finished writing the dictionary? You sound like him sometimes. :P

[Scraperfan]

edit. carry on...

[Dilaz89]

Just read Ruthefords piece. It's too trashy to even consider writing a reponse.


Let this one go.

[BartBart]

You needn't apologise profusely. My preference - a profound one at that - would be for you to preface your own predisposition for pontification with a prudent but precise forewarning that a your prolific vocabulary was about to be dashed upon the quivering wet stones of our beady wee eyes.

Seriously, have you see the episode of Blackadder the third and the guy who just finished writing the dictionary? You sound like him sometimes. :P

Just don't throw the dictionary on the fire then.

[desperaterobots]

Actually on topic though, Rutherfords article was dripping with condescension. Like homer said, age brings experience and experience only. Wisdom does not necessarily follow, nor is it the exclusive domain of middle aged opinion page armchair town-planners. Young people can be pretty wise, too.

Rutherford complains that people confuse science-fiction vision and town-planning detail, then perpetuates the confusion by panning the entire plan on the basis of it's "Buck Rogers" imagined architecture. Any one who has looked beyond the superficial of Landcorps vision can see that form follows function; The function of the proposal is to help inject life into the city streets by helping to create a critical mass of workers and residents so the city can be activated after hours. Thus, the form of tall buildings are required to house the workers and residents. Continuing the Buck Rogers theme - it's not rocket science.

Rutherford's simplistic proposal is to open more retail on the terrace. He's missing the point. With no inner city population to support retail being open after 5pm, this is no solution at all. The point of the development is to help enliven the city. Part of that comes through the increased inner city residents the Landcorp proposal provides for.

But the important part is in convincing a few thousand office workers to stick around a while before heading home. Providing them with a precinct that offers them an experience they can't find at the suburban malls, one that bustles, one with buzz, with interesting architecture and a range of different experiences will accomplish that.

But a low-rise, low-density, low-impact, low-interest development like that proposed by CityVision will not. We may as well build another Barrack Square for all the good that would accomplish.

[Dilaz89]

Human scale to enliven Dullsville

24th September 2008, 15:00 WST






The release on Monday of Perth City Council’s 20-year planning strategy — City of Perth 2029 — should at least help to re-open the debate about Perth’s planning future. What with the State election and a few other minor events, such as the problems on Wall Street, the topic had slipped out of the public’s attention for some time.

The question of the Perth foreshore development did surface once or twice, however.

Shortly before election day, Colin Barnett announced that a Liberal government would scrap the last government’s development proposal, saying he did not believe that people wanted skyscrapers on the foreshore, which he believed would become an enclave for corporations and rich apartment-dwellers.

A fortnight later, during the negotiations over the alliance with the Nationals, Mr Barnett repeated his belief that the proposal would not proceed, being among a number of major capital works that needed to be reassessed in the light of falling future revenues, already heavily committed.

This would seem to put an end to the proposal which first surfaced back in late May. Perhaps it was fated not to succeed anyway. Public reaction (apart from that on the project website) was indeed largely hostile; the skyscrapers were not well received, and the swan water feature attracted its own infamy.

For better or worse, Perth’s residents, suburban to the core, have always been touchy on the foreshore subject.

As I pointed out at the time, many of them would probably prefer to leave it as it is, with hectares of couch grass, decorated from time to time with rusty irrigation pipes.

People can be persuaded out of that sort of attitude; but coming up with an artist’s impression reminiscent of the cover of a 1950s science-fiction magazine was probably not the best way to go — all that was missing were the Buck Rogers-style jet cars. It had, in that way, a certain retro charm.

A rival vision was released, though with very little fanfare, by the City Vision group; regrettably, it seems not yet to have been accompanied by any drawings that a layman could use to get a rough idea of what was involved.

It struck me at the time as being a very good starting place for the development of the foreshore — development which is inevitable, being a question not of “if” but of “when”. Its basic layout echoed and continued the rectangular grid pattern of the city centre, even down to the bodies of river water let in to the design.

It continued the city down from the Terrace and the Esplanade in a natural and civilised manner, and paid more respect to the Supreme Court and its gardens. The buildings were fairly dense, but not skyscrapers. Most importantly, it possessed a human scale and human proportions. It is still probably the best starting point for what will come, and City Vision should be encouraged to give it more prominence.

What has been most noticeable about the controversy has been its general tone.

Those who were not in favour of the original project were described (in one memorable phrase) as ageing naysayers, old fuddy-duddies without the imagination to see that this was the only way forward.

Supporters, on the other hand, tended to see themselves as visionaries, possessed of an imagination sometimes compared

with Jorn Utzon’s, the implication being that not to go ahead would deprive us of an icon to match Sydney’s Opera House; a typical confusion of town planning with the architecture that fits into it.

Some of the comments I received were surprisingly vindictive. A number of them offered the idea that to oppose was to be a supporter of what is now known as Dullsville.

One irritating feature of all this is a strong contempt for the taxpayer, who is expected to cough up without having any voice whatsoever in the process.

Much the same sort of thing emerged last weekend, in this newspaper’s West Weekend Magazine: “It’s the tale of two cities: young, exciting, resource-rich Perth, and conservative, reactionary change-averse Dullsville”.

This is all a bit over the top. It is misleading; it is poor argument; and it is more than a little beside the point.

Perth’s dullness, such as it is, could be changed tomorrow without any foreshore development. We are still unpicking the results of decades of poor planning decisions; decisions which, for instance, ensured the sterility of the Terrace by excluding retail at ground level, and decisions which foolishly discouraged people from actually living in the city.

Making it a more human city, with more life and more friendly architecture, is not difficult. This sort of thinking appeared in the weekend piece, especially in the entirely apt comments by Adrian Iredale.

Arguing that this is something to be decided on the basis of one generation warring with another is wrong and unhelpful. It is, on the other hand, fairly typical of a certain kind of young person who thinks of himself as a member of a generation (Gen Y, or perhaps, these days, Gen Z), bitterly oppressed by pathetic old and wealthy baby boomers.

The problem is that just as most old people accumulate assets, they also accumulate something that we call wisdom. It’s not much in fashion these days, but it is useful from time to time.

Baby boomers once had strong passions and strange preferences, too. We prefer not to think about that, but every now and then it is brought home to us — finding that old Emerson, Lake and Palmer album, and hiding it with a guilty start. Or, more to the point, recalling a youthful passion for Brutalist architecture.

Reshaping Perth over the next decade or so is a challenging task. It will not be made easier by drawing up generational battlelines. Enthusiasm is fine, by all means; but it will all go wrong if that is not expressed within the bounds of real civil and civic architecture and planning.

TONY RUTHERFORD

[ryan79]

But even experience is not relative to age. You could be 60yo and never really done anything outside of your home and work for most of your life but at 30 you could have travelled more, been more involved in the community, worked many different jobs etc.

Personally I don't think age brings much to the table, experience on the other hand...

[desperaterobots]

I think this is a subversive attempt legitimise CityVision and their proposal by way of contrasting it with the Landcorp plan. CityVision hope to appear as an alternative thinktank with just as much planning expertise as those involved in the Landcorp proposal. Judging by the guy in the leather jacket and the inclusion of 'Union Jack Square' (invasion square more like) in their plan, this really worries me.

[ryan79]

What an insulting cunt.

FFS I'm 30, hardly a kid and I'm enthusiastic about the proposal, even my 50 something year old Dad is excited.

I fucken hate cunts who think they are speaking on the behalf of people. Its plain fucking arrogant!!!!


Sorry about the C bomb, but its warranted.

[desperaterobots]

But even experience is not relative to age. You could be 60yo and never really done anything outside of your home and work for most of your life but at 30 you could have travelled more, been more involved in the community, worked many different jobs etc.

Personally I don't think age brings much to the table, experience on the other hand...

No. You're muddying the waters. Age always brings experience. But experience does not necessarily bring wisdom. That's the point. Rutherford's core idea was that the Waterfront should not be a generational battlefront, but the entire article derides the aspirations, wishes and intelligence of the younger generation. He is right on one thing: his generation is arrogant if they consider themselves wiser than ours by default. Nothing like arguing on merits I guess.

[dazzyd]

by the way who is tony rutherford anyway.?? is he a planner/ engineer architect or a wannabe urban planner. looks like he might be in citivisions back pocket.!!

[desperaterobots]

Something strikes me about Rutherford's article. What exactly was released by CityVision, other than the overhead 'map' of streets etc that we saw? Was there anything that indicated the scale of buildings? Because I really don't remember anything that gave me any indication that this was a development more "human" in scale, nothing where we could see the buildings were "fairly dense", etc.

What is he referring to? Is he just exaggerating to push his agenda?

[ryan79]

Something strikes me about Rutherford's article. What exactly was released by CityVision, other than the overhead 'map' of streets etc that we saw? Was there anything that indicated the scale of buildings? Because I really don't remember anything that gave me any indication that this was a development more "human" in scale, nothing where we could see the buildings were "fairly dense", etc.

What is he referring to? Is he just exaggerating to push his agenda?

Union Jack square. What an idea!!

So human its more human than human.

And they wanna hang shit on the Swan island concept.

[desperaterobots]

Precisely. There is nothing that makes me cringe more than the notion that we should celebrate the dominant culture by naming a square after another countries flag. Jesus. It borders on parody. And Rutherford thinks this is a good start.

[ryan79]

No. You're muddying the waters. Age always brings experience. But experience does not necessarily bring wisdom. That's the point. Rutherford's core idea was that the Waterfront should not be a generational battlefront, but the entire article derides the aspirations, wishes and intelligence of the younger generation. He is right on one thing: his generation is arrogant if they consider themselves wiser than ours by default. Nothing like arguing on merits I guess.

Nah I think I'm not getting it across properly. Heres an example.

A 50yo person with experience as a cleaner who decides that Union Jack square is fantastic and human.

A 25yo person who has been an urban planner for 5 years.

Despite being 25 years older that person has got no experience whatsoever pertaining to the actual issue at hand nor the wisdom.

Doesn't mean this person can't come up with ideas but they sure as hell do not have the right to deride younger people of theirs.

[ryan79]

Precisely. There is nothing that makes me cringe more than the notion that we should celebrate the dominant culture by naming a square after another countries flag. Jesus. It borders on parody. And Rutherford thinks this is a good start.

Its disturbingly cringe worthy. Even the poms would be thinking - WTF?

[Dilaz89]

correct, DR.

[Bonga]

Something strikes me about Rutherford's article. What exactly was released by CityVision, other than the overhead 'map' of streets etc that we saw? Was there anything that indicated the scale of buildings? Because I really don't remember anything that gave me any indication that this was a development more "human" in scale, nothing where we could see the buildings were "fairly dense", etc.

What is he referring to? Is he just exaggerating to push his agenda?
He sort of acknowledged this himself: "...regrettably, it seems not yet to have been accompanied by any drawings that a layman could use to get a rough idea of what was involved." The PDF map of CityVision's plan that I have indicates "6-8 level development," and there is a short Word document accompanying it rejecting the idea of high rise being necessary to achieve a critical mass. Presumably this is Rutherford's source as well.

[desperaterobots]

Ryan, you're arguing quality and/or relevance of experience, which is what the argument should be about. But Rutherford's framing the argument on quantity of experience.

He's doing it because quantity is easily confused with quality of experience (or, simply put, wisdom). You cannot argue with a 50 year old and try to convince them that a 25 year old has more experience (and therefore wisdom). You can only point out that experience does not grant wisdom.

[desperaterobots]

He sort of acknowledged this himself: "...regrettably, it seems not yet to have been accompanied by any drawings that a layman could use to get a rough idea of what was involved." The PDF map of CityVision's plan that I have indicates "6-8 level development," and there is a short Word document accompanying it rejecting the idea of high rise being necessary to achieve a critical mass. Presumably this is Rutherford's source as well.

Right, right. So Rutherford's just using his imagination and declaring it's the best option for Perth. Heh. Arrogance is right.

[samboy]

I believe the question is about 'relevant' experience which doesn't necessarily come with extensive living (i.e age) rather extensive involvement with the matter at hand.
A 60 year old experienced steak knife seller does not necessarily have more experience in planning than a 20 year old planning student.
Life in general does provide some 'general' experience however there's no direct relationship to specific areas.
People's credentials should be evaluated objectively using multiple criteria to determine who in fact has the most knowledge and experience. However in this world everyone's a f*** 'expert'

[desperaterobots]

That's what I'm saying, Samboy. Rutherford prefers the proposal of CityVision to that of Landcorp. Quality and relevance of experience is plainly not what he is interested in.

[Dilaz89]

The bad thing about Planning is that the average joe thinks they know what is best. You wouldn't argue with other professionals such as doctors and lawyers about what's best for you.

[samboy]

Rutherford is just a media whore. IF Landcorp's and CV proposals were reversed he'd be supporting CV. (not that CV's proposal can actually be called a proposal). For people like him it's the 'attention' element to himself and not the proposal.

[desperaterobots]

To be fair the same mud could be thrown at us or FuturePerth. Only we're supporting the proposal that was a collaborative effort of a number of professionals that has won praise from other professionals, and not the anglo-centric cry-for-attention say-nothing .pdf of CityVision.

[Bonga]

I acknowledge that there's a degree of arrogance in this article, and I mostly disagree with Rutherford's opinion of the actual plans (Cityvision and Landcorp). But I think there's a lot of truth in what he is saying about the negative spirit of this debate, particularly the "generational battlelines." The hostile, dismissive reactions to this article that some people on this forum have been so quick to dish out are actually proving his point.

[desperaterobots]

Bonga, he drew the battlelines of the generational debate with that article.

Rutherford's core idea was that the Waterfront should not be a generational battlefront, but the entire article derides the aspirations, wishes and intelligence of the younger generation. He is right on one thing: his generation is arrogant if they consider themselves wiser than ours by default.

Our reactions are heated because of his opinion, as he laid it out, was "They're young. They don't understand." It was condescending at best, and undeserved. The fact of the matter is that the Waterfront is not designed, primarily, to attract life to the city. And city life is, by popular reckoning, for the young.

Hillaries, Mandurah, Fremantle. There are enough casual waterfront family friendly fish and chip seagull infested lardholes already. We do not need another.

[Bonga]

The bad thing about Planning is that the average joe thinks they know what is best. You wouldn't argue with other professionals such as doctors and lawyers about what's best for you.
This is in no way limited to planning. Doctors are probably constantly telling people to quit smoking, exercise more, change their diets etc. in response to a myriad of health problems, only to have it ignored. I don't see how an obesity epidemic, for example, is any less a potential source of frustration to a doctor than the (perceived) shortcomings of Perth's built environment are to a planner.

Who is a planner to say "what's best" for anybody else? Are one's own personal values really less important than somebody else's professional ones? Do all planning professionals unanimously agree on the merits of any proposal?

But I know where you're coming from, as I often feel the same frustration. I may end up pursuing a different profession (or at least a different location) if it starts to get the better of me.

Bonga, he drew the battlelines of the generational debate with that article.

Our reactions are heated because of his opinion, as he laid it out, was "They're young. They don't understand." It was condescending at best, and undeserved. The fact of the matter is that the Waterfront is not designed, primarily, to attract life to the city. And city life is, by popular reckoning, for the young.

Hillaries, Mandurah, Fremantle. There are enough casual waterfront family friendly fish and chip seagull infested lardholes already. We do not need another.
I don't disagree with you there, and much of the criticism of the article has been quite valid. Like I said, I also disagree with his take on the planning of the waterfront.

But speaking more broadly, he's touched upon what I consider to be a genuine shortcoming in the way many of us here (and perhaps our generation in general) often engage in planning debates. Don't you sometimes feel that this forum contains as much contemptful, arrogant derision of those with differing views as it does meaningful discussion of planning and architecture? This sort of banter can be amusing to a point, particularly within a casual context like this, but it's ultimately an unhelpful distraction, or even avoidance of the real issues. For Rutherford to be writing about such vitriol, it's clearly not something that's limited to this forum.

[ryan79]

The bad thing about Planning is that the average joe thinks they know what is best. You wouldn't argue with other professionals such as doctors and lawyers about what's best for you.

You'd be surprised. I have been argued with a lot by those who think they know all about IT.

Which is where a lot of my point was coming from before. But DR nailed it. I was saying the same thing in a different way.

[desperaterobots]

This is in no way limited to planning. Doctors are probably constantly telling people to quit smoking, exercise more, change their diets etc. in response to a myriad of health problems, only to have it ignored. I don't see how an obesity epidemic, for example, is any less a potential source of frustration to a doctor than the (perceived) shortcomings of Perth's built environment are to a planner.

Who is a planner to say "what's best" for anybody else? Are one's own personal values really less important than somebody else's professional ones? Do all planning professionals unanimously agree on the merits of any proposal?

But I know where you're coming from, as I often feel the same frustration. I may end up pursuing a different profession (or at least a different location) if it starts to get the better of me.


I don't disagree with you there, and much of the criticism of the article has been quite valid. Like I said, I also disagree with his take on the planning of the waterfront.

But speaking more broadly, he's touched upon what I consider to be a genuine shortcoming in the way many of us here (and perhaps our generation in general) often engage in planning debates. Don't you sometimes feel that this forum contains as much contemptful, arrogant derision of those with differing views as it does meaningful discussion of planning and architecture? This sort of banter can be amusing to a point, particularly within a casual context like this, but it's ultimately an unhelpful distraction, or even avoidance of the real issues. For Rutherford to be writing about such vitriol, it's clearly not something that's limited to this forum.

I'll agree with you that some of the commentary on this forum is just as arrogant and contemptful: a big fat yes. There are people here who think they know more than they do for sure. The difference is that we aren't paid for our opinions and they aren't home delivered to hundreds of thousands of people across the state. Any discussion we have here is public, and people can make up their own minds as they watch the back and forth. Rutherford has the luxury and advantage to present his opinion without the context of dissenting voices by which readers could contrast the article (the editor-selected, agenda-driven Letters page does not count). Here, any opinion is lucky to go by without someone else having a say.

But yes, I do agree with you to some respect.

[Skyline Art]

from a previous quote: #59:
For better or worse, Perth’s residents, suburban to the core, have always been touchy on the foreshore subject.

As I pointed out at the time, many of them would probably prefer to leave it as it is, with hectares of couch grass, decorated from time to time with rusty irrigation pipes.

WTF is up with the need to have hectares of grass with decoration of rusty irragation pipes??? why cant they have sculptures or something instead?

Alas I think grass requires truck loads of water, and so would highrises for both construction and consumption, however if the developers got savy, they could still achieve both savings and there wouldn't be a need to have hectares of grass to water....
:lol: i know this is now probulary a late post, but im suprised how many posts I had to read through on this thread today just for perth waterfront alone...

Overall that Tony Rutherford's article is more personal rather than political i think too... those kinds of statements should be left out of newspapers headlines and put in the your say section only.... after all it is his say....

[dallastexjr]

:lol: i know this is now probulary a late post, but im suprised how many posts I had to read through on this thread today just for perth waterfront alone...


Stop saying 'probulary' and start saying 'probably' and threads won't have to go off-topic. :)

[Skyline Art]

^^ Sorry, there is worse spelling on these threads for other words worse than probably.... So i usually don't think to check my spelling. :)
Pg 48 of Century City appears to have a few misspelt words in it...

Anyway back on topic: This is about the future of the water front debate (which is of more important) not spelling! :lol:

[Homeroids]

The reason why Tony Rutherford's piece was poor is because it did exactly what it claimed to bring to attention. It added fuel to the generational divide. It's that simple and that's why it has none of my respect. It did this in a very patronising way.

Beside the fact the actual Landcorp plan is not a "Y" or lol, "Z" generation idea.

I would like to know what is "civilised" about something called "Union Jack" square? If this is not proof that the idea of wisdom and age means "out of touch" as defined by Rutherford and therefore CV, then I don't know what is.

[aaronaugi1]

The reason why Tony Rutherford's piece was poor is because it did exactly what it claimed to bring to attention. It added fuel to the generational divide. It's that simple and that's why it has none of my respect. It did this in a very patronising way.

Beside the fact the actual Landcorp plan is not a "Y" or lol, "Z" generation idea.

I would like to know what is "civilised" about something called "Union Jack" square? If this is not proof that the idea of wisdom and age means "out of touch" as defined by Rutherford and therefore CV, then I don't know what is.

I just hate how so many opinion pieces claim to represent everyones values. They're opinion articles for a reason.

[desperaterobots]

Indeed. It seems to be a very Perth thing, too. I don't see many opinion pieces in The Age that claim to speak for all Victorians. Sean's piece in the West was guilty of the same.

[dallastexjr]

^^ Sorry, there is worse spelling on these threads for other words worse than probably.... So i usually don't think to check my spelling. :)
Pg 48 of Century City appears to have a few misspelt words in it...

Anyway back on topic: This is about the future of the water front debate (which is of more important) not spelling! :lol:

No offence meant, Sky. Just having a gentle nudge atchya hehe.

Rutherford's article was meant to appeal to the lowest common denominator. He's like one of those vile radio talkback wankers who entertain the double-brain-celled housewives and various stupid old people by letting them out of their boxes and giving them a voice.

Despite the fact that he admitted seeing only a two dimensional view of CV's plan, he still preferred it based on, as I see it, linear orderliness. This type of planning is a trademark of the staid Victorian era, to which he doubtless harks back to.

It's already been mentioned, but the gall of him to try and equate the 'tiny' misdemeanours of an older generation with a wrong album choice seriously undermines the mistakes with which his generation destroyed Perth - the destruction of many of Perth's grand heritage buildings. All this was neatly swept under the carpet with a stroke of amnesia.

Perhaps two members of FP could offer to meet him for a lunchtime coffee and exchange views. Perhaps he could see reason with some feedback.

[Citystyle]

Did i get the feeling this was directed at Future Perth's rhetoric?

I hope to never have wisdom under his definition, confusing the events of the past with the exceptional circumstances that exists in each individual case is not wisdom but a case of serious nostalgia and cynicism. How senile does one have to be too obtain this so called wisdom, a wisdom based on bigotry, cliches and of stereotypes, based around a natural history and innate universe that is no longer observable to those that still have the ability to observe. I mean how hypocritical can a media commentator get? the rhetoric towards the young is so one sided, that he arrogantly talks down the young, their future and their potential.

Of course if he was wise he would realize that age conflict goes back thousands of years, from Aristotle to Rutherford's cynics of youth have been proven wrong. This is some serious innate wisdom that occurs far from the corruption of personal experience and interpretation.

The confusion between ones pretext and the current context is a grave mistake, the past was perhaps filled with boldness, grandness and vision ( i do however fail to see any relevance to this point). But to lather a project with cynicism and distrust is inhuman and suggests he sufferers from a serious level of social disconnection.

Perhaps the good do die young; because if wisdom is of age and his idea of wisdom holds true, then i will happily retain my sanity in exchange for missing a few cricket seasons.

The wise move is to sure up Perth's image as a city of global relevance and one seen to be Liberal, Progressive where business can make a buck and individuals pursue a lifestyle. We are talking about imagery, no wonder conservatives oppose the futuristic renders in such a manner. Instead we seem to have had a serious dose of protectionism in the media in the current so called "exceptional" political environment, rather than being balanced with an open and rational mind, im hearing allot of reactionary and misplaces protectionist drivel.

We the world should be ensuring our future with boldness and vision, to address fault(s) where recognised and move to reshape the world in a evermore open a fashion. We do live in exceptional time, everyone who has ever walk the earth has.

[desperaterobots]

No offence meant, Sky. Just having a gentle nudge atchya hehe.

Rutherford's article was meant to appeal to the lowest common denominator. He's like one of those vile radio talkback wankers who entertain the double-brain-celled housewives and various stupid old people by letting them out of their boxes and giving them a voice.

Despite the fact that he admitted seeing only a two dimensional view of CV's plan, he still preferred it based on, as I see it, linear orderliness. This type of planning is a trademark of the staid Victorian era, to which he doubtless harks back to.

It's already been mentioned, but the gall of him to try and equate the 'tiny' misdemeanours of an older generation with a wrong album choice seriously undermines the mistakes with which his generation destroyed Perth - the destruction of many of Perth's grand heritage buildings. All this was neatly swept under the carpet with a stroke of amnesia.

Perhaps two members of FP could offer to meet him for a lunchtime coffee and exchange views. Perhaps he could see reason with some feedback.

Bolded the part that Bonga was talking about. ;)

But it's a good point to note that his generation was responsible for some of the crimes that have left Perth as the husk of a city that it is. If I was comparing resumes between Perth BabyBoomers and Perth Generation X Y Z, I'd be looking toward the future and I know who I would pick.

[Homeroids]

Did i get the feeling this was directed at Future Perth's rhetoric?

I hope to never have wisdom under his definition, confusing the events of the past with the exceptional circumstances that exists in each individual case is not wisdom but a case of serious nostalgia and cynicism. How senile does one have to be too obtain this so called wisdom, a wisdom based on bigotry, cliches and of stereotypes, based around a natural history and innate universe that is no longer observable to those that still have the ability to observe. I mean how hypocritical can a media commentator get? the rhetoric towards the young is so one sided, that he arrogantly talks down the young, their future and their potential.

Of course if he was wise he would realize that age conflict goes back thousands of years, from Aristotle to Rutherford's cynics of youth have been proven wrong. This is some serious innate wisdom that occurs far from the corruption of personal experience and interpretation.

The confusion between ones pretext and the current context is a grave mistake, the past was perhaps filled with boldness, grandness and vision ( i do however fail to see any relevance to this point). But to lather a project with cynicism and distrust is inhuman and suggests he sufferers from a serious level of social disconnection.

Perhaps the good do die young; because if wisdom is of age and his idea of wisdom holds true, then i will happily retain my sanity in exchange for missing a few cricket seasons.

The wise move is to sure up Perth's image as a city of global relevance and one seen to be Liberal, Progressive where business can make a buck and individuals pursue a lifestyle. We are talking about imagery, no wonder conservatives oppose the futuristic renders in such a manner. Instead we seem to have had a serious dose of protectionism in the media in the current so called "exceptional" political environment, rather than being balanced with an open and rational mind, im hearing allot of reactionary and misplaces protectionist drivel.

We the world should be ensuring our future with boldness and vision, to address fault(s) where recognised and move to reshape the world in a evermore open a fashion. We do live in exceptional time, everyone who has ever walk the earth has.

Now that reply is more complex than one of mine. Why isn't Desperaterobots picking up on this? :) lol.

[Matt B]

From today's West: It is official, Ken Adam and City Vision OPPOSES residential above street level retail... so he basically is saying, from his significant experience, that Rome, Berlin, London, Madrid, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Prague, New York City etc etc etc DON't WORK!!!! http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=99544 great article though

"CityVision chairman Ken Adam, who has proposed a comparatively low-key foreshore development, said access to the development by an increased city population was more important to the success of the project than a critical mass of people in buildings on the waterfront.

“The danger is if you mix highvalue residential real estate with noisy and busy retail you end up with a situation like we’ve had at the Swan Brewery where retail activity at street level has been curtailed because of residential activity above it,” he said.

“You can have access to it without necessarily living on top of it.”

IF they are not living above street activity - where the heck does Ken think that all the "increased city population" is coming from. D I N O S A U R.

[Matt B]

What Ken DOES highlight though is the need to amend noise regulations etc.

[Homeroids]

I think Ken is trying to say that the entertainment facility attached to the "high density" residential complex on top of it, gets restricted by the residents? It's worded in such a flowery way, that it could mean a number of things. Don't you love the ambiguity these people thrive on?

It's grasping at straws and gollipygoop (if that's a word). Maybe Ken should look to the Raffles Hotel as a better example. I fail to see an 18 story complex on top of the Swan Brewery complex.

Assuming there is a conflict between residential tenants and owners of the entertainment businesses below, this is merely a result of poor design. A good design in the complex will ensure all proofing of entertainment usage from residential. Proofing of sound, access, ensuring privacy etc. I'm pretty sure the businesses enjoy the return convenience patronage, all the same.

Seriously, this 'danger' Ken Adam alludes to is in his mind. It's like Dan Hatch caught him on the hop and he couldn't think of a good retort at the time.

[crave]

what ken's highlighted also is his total cluelessness about noise coming into apartment towers.

jesus christ. ken please stay overnight any modern apartment highrise on tha weekend central to the cbd in and around australia and tell me about noise, you ass.

my god.

i can't get over tha fact he used tha swan brewery as an example of noise issues. idiot.

[Homeroids]

Yes, it's not rocket science. Any reasonably good design will isolate the residential part from the entertainment part appropriately. The danger is a n00b architect might not know how to design.

High density has nothing to do with it. Good design has everything to do with it. Ken didn't even use an extreme high density example.

[dcmcd]

“The danger is if you mix highvalue residential real estate with noisy and busy retail you end up with a situation like we’ve had at the Swan Brewery where retail activity at street level has been curtailed because of residential activity above it,” he said.



There are issues with residents at the old brewery and the bar placed underneath. There were very tight restrictions placed on the usage of the outside area (doesn't it have to close at 10), as they built apartments so close to the bar. The original plan for the brewery had more bars and restaurants planned, but they cut them back in order to make millions from selling apartments. So, he does have a point.

With the brewery it's more of a case of bad design than anything else. With good design this situation could of been avoided. They stuffed the Brewery up, just to make $$$. The original art gallery and office space with more bars and restaurants would of worked much better.

[ryan79]

Why is it the idiots always have the biggest voices in the world?

I lived 2 stories above a shop, a late night pizza place and a 24hr bar next in London and the only problem I had was with traffic noise.

Can these people please step aside, move to Mandurah and let the people who aren't ready to retire run this city. FFS PLEASE!!

Geez we even have a retiring/retired Premier.

The more I think about it the sadder it is. Not sad, whats the phrase I'm looking for? Umm sucidally depressing. Yeah, that nails it.

You know this is exactly what will happen to our Waterfront and we will end up with Union jack square. I'm making my prediction now.

[desperaterobots]

Ken Adams is only right in saying that rich old people don't like noise, and that WA has no legislation to protect businesses from rich old people who don't like noise. No provision for residents in this plan means it is a dead precinct before a single square inch of lawn is pulled up.

[ryan79]

Yes the noise of fun can be deafening to some people.

Look I know this gonna sound radical and way far out there but if you don't like noise hows aboot you get the fuck out of the city.

And people who like to actually ummm live and breath move into the city?

I have no problem with people enjoying peace and quiet but just fuck off and do it quietly. Its ironic that these quiet loving people are actually the loudest whingers.

[Scraperfan]

the article - you know i actually lobbyed matthew bradley at landcorp quite heavily to move the tower to the west side of the inlet. can i claim credit? :)

New foreshore spot for planned 60-storey tower
25th September 2008, 7:15 WST

The Perth Waterfront Project’s 60-storey tower planned for Barrack Square is likely to be moved to the other side of the circular inlet under revised plans released by LandCorp yesterday.

Delayed by the government caretaker period, the results of consultation with leaders in industry were posted on the Government developer’s website yesterday, but are likely to be irrelevant because new Premier Colin Barnett prefers a smaller foreshore development.

The peer design review found “no fatal flaws” with the previous government’s design and recommended the planned public building become a centre for indigenous heritage.

It also recommended the concentration of dense development on William Street to capitalise on the Esplanade train station, including moving the controversial tower.

The report’s release came as experts warned the new Government low-rise development might endanger the project’s viability. Pracsys Economics director Michael Chappell said yesterday many residents were needed to keep the area busy after the city workforce went home.

“There is a critical mass threshold, economically, and we think it is flawed to suggest that lower-scale and lowerdensity development would create an activity level that reaches that threshold,” he said.

“The residential concentration is a very important catalytic element in the vitality of cities and is directly proportionate to the viability of the other infrastructure which makes it an interesting place for other people to be, namely the workforce and visitors.

“If one goes for a lower density of development one is conceding those elements are not going to present in sufficient quantity and for a restaurateur to be open at 9 or 10 o’clock at night, when there are no patrons, is not viable.”

CityVision chairman Ken Adam, who has proposed a comparatively low-key foreshore development, said access to the development by an increased city population was more important to the success of the project than a critical mass of people in buildings on the waterfront.

“The danger is if you mix highvalue residential real estate with noisy and busy retail you end up with a situation like we’ve had at the Swan Brewery where retail activity at street level has been curtailed because of residential activity above it,” he said.

“You can have access to it without necessarily living on top of it.”

Property Council of WA policy manager Lino Iacomella said the sector would talk to the new Government about the best commercial outcome for the project, including building heights.

“While there is always room to consider changes it is important the project is impressive and innovative to ensure it will attract the necessary private investment,” he said.

DANIEL HATCH

[tbor]

Bugger, just posted that in WA news section. Beaten by Andrew >_<

[desperaterobots]

I can't imagine how frustrated the Landcorp guys must be. Barnett isn't going to look at this from anything other than an ideological standpoint! It's dooooomed.

[Homeroids]

I feel it has become trapped in the games older people play - politics. It's very frustrating. Personally I feel if they want to play that game, the best thing to do is just to let it go. Visionary people also need to choose the right time. There's just too much ambivalence to this vision at the moment from the powers that be. They are onto it. I'd rather wait another 10 years than get another "Bell Tower", meaning something that is mediocrity and marketed with "Union Jack Square". The good thing is, some Think Tanks are getting old, too old to continue, and they refuse to allow "new" blood into their ranks.

The reality though is this:

The Landcorp plan is a concept that is promoting boldness and vitality. Why anyone would want to oppose this is beyond me. They are trapped in an emotive mind because of an island shaped like a Swan and a 60 story building. They cannot and will not see the true intent behind it so they play their adult games. And they think they are wise?

[Dilaz89]

another letter by that person of cottesloe- R D Walsh in todays west.

[Sanj]

There are issues with residents at the old brewery and the bar placed underneath. There were very tight restrictions placed on the usage of the outside area (doesn't it have to close at 10), as they built apartments so close to the bar. The original plan for the brewery had more bars and restaurants planned, but they cut them back in order to make millions from selling apartments. So, he does have a point.

With the brewery it's more of a case of bad design than anything else. With good design this situation could of been avoided. They stuffed the Brewery up, just to make $$$. The original art gallery and office space with more bars and restaurants would of worked much better.


that is true but from what i know, the complaints were from a couple that lived directly above the restaurant/bar. The problem was that it was really badly constructed and they could hear everything. the restaurant ended up having to spend a fair bit of money on insulation etc. this was told to me by an agent with a fair bit of experience in selling apartments in there.

i think the worst examples of idiots complaining about noise were when the grosvenor lost its ability to have live gigs because of ONE single complaining resident and hudson had to close because of i think 3 complaints, from wills building i would assume. i remember then that the AHA was trying to get legislation that it required a minimum of 10 complaining residents for a place to get shut down but they didnt succeed.



EDIT - this was also in response to what crave and homeroids wrote re swan brewery but i was a bit too lazy to quote 3 posts

[Dilaz89]

It was labors dumb idea to reduce complains from 10 to 1 for an 'investigation' to occur.

[Homeroids]

Regardless, this issue of noise complaints is not a strong argument against mixing residential on top of entertainment. It's poor and bad design. It can easily be addressed in design. For example - mixed use buildings. The first few floors might be commercial. No conflict with noise after hours. I can think of many ideas off the top of my head.

And like the poor restaurant found out here, a bit of insulation does not go astray. That's just proof of bad design in the first place.

This is not rocket science. This is a trumped up excuse and an irrational argument against the Waterfront.

[Sanj]

homer, i agree with what u say entirely but what u are saying works based on logic. unfortunately with the potential for a place closing due to 1 single complaint, i think it is potentially doomed from the start.

[Homeroids]

That's a wider issue. I agree. If the logic is a precedent set by 1 complaint can stop a waterfront development because a proper process wasn't in place to deal with frivolous complaints AND a suitable design to allow mixed used in the first place is not possible, then we might as well be doomed to urban sprawl based on this stupid way of thinking.

It's an ethereal (lol simple word there, without substance) argument.

[Homeroids]

I might like to add, even with the lower/medium densities the CV plan proposes ( they do want residential in their waterfront too), their plan has the exact same issue. In fact the height of the building on top of the entertainment use means people become more detached from the noise.

So basically, Ken has raised a point that means keeping the grass. CV's waterfront and Landcorp's waterfront both have to deal with this issue, though personally, I think it's a BS point anyway as long as design and logic prevail.

[Dockside]

^^^^ :ohno:I do feel for you guys over there, you can be thankfull that Perth is in a FanTastic location on the Swan that one day something BIG will be built, not IF but WHEN, & when that happens Perth will rival Sydney for water views IMHO...:):)

[Homeroids]

^^thanks for the support :)

[ryan79]

^^^^ :ohno:I do feel for you guys over there, you can be thankfull that Perth is in a FanTastic location on the Swan that one day something BIG will be built, not IF but WHEN, & when that happens Perth will rival Sydney for water views IMHO...:):)

I think thats what makes it so frustrating. Because its so true.

[acc521]

Also, some people like the noise of the city. Whenever I have stayed in a hotel and had the window open at night in a big city, I actually like the amient sound of traffic and the occasional gleaning of a loud conversation.

As for people thinking they know more than planners, this seems to be the case with almost every profession out there except for sport persons. With sports, there is a genuine admission that sportsperson X is better than me at sports. With anything that involves studying or brainpower or knowledge, everyone knows better than people who work in the field everyday. This is very frustrating and exactly what Rutherford is talking about.

"I don't care if you know your stuff, because I'm older and wiser than you."

[acc521]

^^^^ :ohno:I do feel for you guys over there, you can be thankfull that Perth is in a FanTastic location on the Swan that one day something BIG will be built, not IF but WHEN, & when that happens Perth will rival Sydney for water views IMHO...:):)

I'm sure there were people in Perth 50 years ago who were saying this. "When" is a very nebulous concept.

[ryan79]

Also, some people like the noise of the city. Whenever I have stayed in a hotel and had the window open at night in a big city, I actually like the amient sound of traffic and the occasional gleaning of a loud conversation.

As for people thinking they know more than planners, this seems to be the case with almost every profession out there except for sport persons. With sports, there is a genuine admission that sportsperson X is better than me at sports. With anything that involves studying or brainpower or knowledge, everyone knows better than people who work in the field everyday. This is very frustrating and exactly what Rutherford is talking about.

"I don't care if you know your stuff, because I'm older and wiser than you."

Hah!!!

Yes, exactly right. I love the sound of the city. You can't get that here though, silence is deafening.

Funny thing is that anyone who lives in the city here doesn't like city living. Its a fucked up situation.

[aaronaugi1]

It was labors dumb idea to reduce complains from 10 to 1 for an 'investigation' to occur.

Our "Crass and Fugly" friend got one in the other day....cant recall what it was about. Pensioners i think.

[dazzyd]

I read that comments to the editor column and i must say R D Walsh of COTTLESOE (NimbyVille) seeems to be having a Go at FP.

and there was another one from hammersley keep the foreshore as it is.. dont change it.:bash:

[Bump]

If there was ever a time to push through a slightly controversial project with 'no fatal flaws' that will have great long term benefits it would be now.

[Scraperfan]

oh my god, probably the most moronic comment yet:

Marty Says:
September 25th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Both the Northbridge link and the Perth foreshore redevelopment are projects merely for aesthetic purposes, dump them too. It’s more important to build hospitals and railways.

>> ill grant him that he recognises the value of railways but hello? we already built a new one and have another major line in the works.

should have read the moronic comments today regarding the medicare surcharge thresh hold on news.com.au

[crave]

let's go build more hospitals to die in.

yay.

[acc521]

I did like the comment about AFL becoming a crap game because it's all about running up and down the field and kicking goals hense all the massive scores we are getting these days. Take any responses to spam, however remember when a team scoring 100 points in and AFL match was a rarity - yet the games were so much more exciting back then. A lot of the contest has been taken out of the matches these days - plenty of goals does not a great game make.

[Homeroids]

We all understand the need for hospitals. I get that but when are these people going to realise that the Waterfront project proposed by Landcorp is likely revenue neutral. I can assure you, the City Vision one would not be since they are not advocating a residential population of 5,000.

There are economics here to consider and no, I am not saying develop at all costs, either.

[acc521]

Why is the revenue neutrality of the project never discussed in the media!

[ryan79]

Why is the revenue neutrality of the project never discussed in the media!

Give you 3 guesses.

The media has an agenda otherwise we'd have the actual truth about whats going on and people would be even more inclined to support it.

Instead we get TT style media reports about it killing our river and babies dying and MASSIVE cost BLOWOUTS and increased TRAFFIC SNARLS.

It insults the fucking intelligence of even the dumbest person.

[Dilaz89]

CV concearns can be addressed through both design and legislation.

There goes that arguement...

The longer CV/others drag this out, the more desperate their arguments becomes which makes it easier for us to rebutt.

[Homeroids]

Others want to see this as a generational divide as well. Create a perspective that is not there. It's simply not the truth. Future Perth did not make the Waterfront proposal that got everyone talking. Landcorp did and it would be presumptuous to think Landcorp is made up of idealistic university under graduates. People like Lisa Scaffidi and Peter Newman support this project.

Just because we support it and use one argument which is that the waterfront is a plus for the Y gen to live in the city does not mean this is our only argument. And, we have a membership open to all ages. Having a membership opened to all ages is one thing but actually having a good cross section of memberships from different ages and backgrounds is another. I think that is why Future Perth's support behind this will come out as more relevant and dare I say it, more wiser - because we hope to represent a wider voice.

[samboy]

As it has become apparent, what wins votes in this city is not the most rational and credible arguments rather the LOUDEST. So come on FP make yourself known and shout from the rooftops if you need to.

[acc521]

^^You mean what wins votes in this city is knowing those that have the power to actually make decisions. The same as everywhere else but so much more pronounced in this place.

The only option is to be loud enough to sway the general public. Logic and credibility need to be presented in a way that sparks something in the mind of Mr and Mrs suburbia.

[Dockside]

Its a growing problem all over the world at the moment, too much change for the Baby Boomers, they want what they have to stay the same or better still, to go back to the 50s 60s & 70s.............

[Dilaz89]

We need to create the impression that there is no generation divide and we stand for not only the younger crowd but also baby boomers who might support our cause.

We might come across as anti-anyone older than thirty , but we've never actually stated that besides a few jokes in these threads. There are plenty of educated, well travelled older people out there who want Perth to evolve as much as we do and they should be part of our target audience.

We should not buy into Rutherfords rhetoric becuase that what he wants us to do.

[jez_24]

Totally in agreement Dilaz... i said in the fp forum that generation and age should be left out of arguments as its irrelevant, alienating and creates a weak point for Rutherford-esque types to jump on :D

[desperaterobots]

That letter today was awful. It's not about wanting Perth to be Melbourne, or Sydney, or any other city. It's about wanting Perth to be a successful city, one that attracts and retains people on the long term, a city with thriving a culture that doesn't stop when the clock strikes 5pm, a city that appeals to tourists and locals on more than the single level of it's beauty. Young or old, who wouldn't want to enjoy a meal on the river, a trip through a late night art gallery, stumbling upon a live music performance, walking through night markets...? And if none of that appeals, there's nothing forcing you to live in the inner city and plenty of suburbia to enjoy.

Why is Perth intent on it's monoculture prevailing? Mount Lawley feels like an island of sanity in a state full of denial. It's the 21st century.

[Matt B]

We might come across as anti-anyone older than thirty.

that hurts

[acc521]

Age certainly has nothing to do with it. I have spoken to a decent number of people ranging from the TT crowd through to highly educated people such as university lecturers with PHDs and a majority hold views in line with what we discuss on here and if they are undecided are willing to listen to the arguments and learn about the ideas. All these people I talk about are in their 40s and 50s.

[BartBart]

The thing is that when people come up with the well worn arguments by the nay-sayers in a discussion it is easy to counter most of them because they aren't well thought out.

"Keep it natural" - it is actually reclaimed land
"People won't be able to walk along the river" - yes you can - look at the plans; the ground floors of buildings are commercial, cafes, etc.
"Keep the river natural" - reclaimed and there is many km of beach and river shore as parkland
....
and so on

But it is easy for them to make meaningless statements like Dubai, Disneyland, etc. in print and play up to the "scared of change" element that is always present - apparantly moreso in WA. In person, you can easily just ask them - why? And it is much harder stance for them to justify when facts are used against it. But I guess, people often don't like facts and reality to get in the way of a good story.

[desperaterobots]

Allusions to Disneyland and Dubai are so - fucking - lazy, and so far off the mark.

I really hope Landcorp release a toned down set of renders to appease the reactionary set, along with a plan that includes all the regulations and requirements for the precinct to succeed; ie minimum heights (maybe even along the lines of CityVision's "plan") but with incentives in place to for building to Landcorp's level of "critical mass".

NIMBY's can stop referring to Dubai, Barnett can appear to have made all the right "tweaks", even CityVision can claim they had some influence - but in the end Perth will wind up with the Waterfront it desperately needs.

[crave]

agree with you dsprtrbts...

maybe they can pump out some streamlined and conservative looking towers for tha concept so it doesn't give barnett and co freakin brain freezes...

[samboy]

I believe there's a term for that which I can't recall. Essentially you present the same idea with a different emphasis to give the appearance of a compromise. Married men (the clever ones) are actually quite good at it ;)

[Macorules94]

We should have a city vote.

Kinda like the priminister election how you HAVE to vote.

[WCG]

I dont think that people actualy care abot the cost- i think either way people prob know that if any ciy in the world can afford sumthing like this Perth is one them! I think it goes back to the issue of-
'Weeeeeee dont want it!
Weeeeeee want the grass to stay!
Weeeeeee dont like highrise!
Just leeave it alone!
Weeeeeee like hillbilly, backward, country town, non progressive insightless, 50 style living!
And every1 should want the same- whats wrong with you people !'

And they dont understand/ believe of care of the Dullisville Tag- coz we are just fine m8 thankyou!

Just a thought

[ryan79]

Nothing shits me more than:

"The people of Perth don't want it"

Honestly if I ever see someone in person say that I will fucking strangle them. Speak for yoself bitchez.

[samboy]

The people of Perth = The vast majority of the population who lives in the burbs and only travels to the city for the RAC Xmas pageant.

[ryan79]

They are people of Perth but not THE people of Perth.

Who gives a fuck what those lifeless suburban drones want.

Ah wait, they are the majority.

I live in Balga and work in Malaga and hang out in my local park but dam if you touch my Waterfront!!

I swear so many people haven't even been there to know what they are debating. They probably saw it once on a calendar with a pic from Kings Park on it.

The BP's going up. This city will seriously be the death of me.

[BartBart]

One analogy I just thought of with the "no change at any cost" brigade is people reaction to new music. If they haven't heard it a 100 times before it is automatically rubbish to them. Whereas to people with an open mind it can be exciting to hear something new and assess it on its merits.

And because of this lack of a adventurous spirit and trying things new and people staying in their comfort zone - is it any wonder why we get boring, middle of the road pap music released. A think a similar line can be drawn with planning/design of the city.

[Sanj]

bart yeah i guess it is a case of some people being aware that there is lots out there (be it music like in your example or in many other cases) that they dont know about and being willing to give it a chance whereas with most people are just not open to new things/change in my opinion

[jez_24]

One analogy I just thought of with the "no change at any cost" brigade is people reaction to new music. If they haven't heard it a 100 times before it is automatically rubbish to them. Whereas to people with an open mind it can be exciting to hear something new and assess it on its merits.

And because of this lack of a adventurous spirit and trying things new and people staying in their comfort zone - is it any wonder why we get boring, middle of the road pap music released. A think a similar line can be drawn with planning/design of the city.

Like that Katy Perry song? Oh wow it's the greatest song on earth! She kissed a girl! Haha the beat and the tune is so lame, it really irritates me. Plus the fact that it's just more psuedo-lesbian crap for titilation.

Douglas Adams wrote something that I shall quote here...(roughly)

"Anything that was invented between the time you were born and your teen years is a natural part of your world. Anything invented up until your 40s is exciting and new, and you could probably get a career in it. Anything invented after your 50's is against the natural order of things."

Kinda relevent when you apply it to buildings... Whoops i just used an age slant. Sorry!

[Sanj]

haha be carerful jez, i had this same debate with SF about this song but he loves it...

[jez_24]

see how he feels about it 3000 plays from now ;) no longevity I tells ya!

Damn Nova

[dazzyd]

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24403168-5017009,00.html

PREMIER Colin Barnett today declined to assure Perth Lord Mayor Lisa Scaffidi that key plans to transform the city would go ahead.
Instead, he has agreed to hold a series of meetings with Ms Scaffidi to discuss the Perth waterfront project, the Northbridge Link, and a performing arts focus for the CBD.

The Labor-driven waterfront project was proposed to link the city to the Swan River using multi-level buildings, restaurants, cafes and bars with a mixture of retail and accommodation.

Deputy Lord Mayor and now Liberal MP for Mt Lawley Michael Sutherland previously described the vision as a Gotham City or Disneyland, suitable for places like Dubai.

Perth Council has backed the waterfront proposal subject to conditions.

Earlier this year, Ms Scaffidi caused anger from within her own council when she publicly backed the plan before councillors had a chance to vote on the matter.

The main part of the link proposal was to sink a section of railway line that would allow Northbridge to merge with the CBD.

The Liberal-National government has warned that major projects will either be axed or put on hold across the state to cover multi-million dollar budget blowouts and rising costs associated with schemes already under way.

Mr Barnett today refused to say how the tightening of belts would affect Perth.

The government has also been placed under financial pressure as part of a pledge to the Nationals that would see 25 per cent of mining royalties go to the regions.

The figure this year would be about $675 million.

Ms Scaffidi said she also spoke broadly with Mr Barnett about the need to upgrade the city’s densities and heights for new developments, trading hour deregulation, CAT buses, public transport and the future of Royal Perth Hospital.

She said a jointly convened series of meetings would commence in the near future involving new key government ministers representing planning, arts, transport and tourism.

“This will enable them to assess and plan city priorities,” she said

“From that base a better understanding and working partnership will be created to ensure the capital city can quickly enhance its vibrancy and become the city we feel better represents our great state.”

Ms Scaffidi said her council was keen to work closely with the new state government and “find ways to deliver a capital city that the whole state can be proud of, while ensuring we gain a legacy from the period of the current economic boom”.

“We are all agreed on the fact our city needs to be vibrant, highly attractive and liveable … and whether you live in Kununurra or Albany, the capital city is the gateway to our grand state and needs to be a showcase,” Ms Scaffidi said.

“This need not be at the expense of the country, rather the city can be seen as the entry point to the country and as the HQ location of the many large corporations who are extracting resources from the regions that are currently being focused on.

“How many more years do we need to talk about creating the kind of capital city we want?

“I am keen to work with the state government to find ways that we can jointly achieve a capital city that everyone can be proud of, whether they live in it, near it, or anywhere else in the state.”

Ms Scaffidi said the infrastructure needs of the city are a critical challenge for the 21st century “if we are serious about creating a city that can remain internationally competitive, attract people of all generations to live and which instils a great sense of pride and ownership about their city”.

[acc521]

Barney, not short of subtle hints that sfa is going to happen in this town over the next 4 years.

The only potential positive is that I sense he is unsure on a lot of issues and seems willing to listen to what people have to say which means logical, well constructed, backed up cases and arguments might push him in the right direction.

[Homeroids]

Lisa Scaffidi article sounds positive but with Sutherland as a Lib MP? I never knew he had this opinion on the Waterfront. He was away when Council voted on it.

To say it's Disneyland or Dubai. I am so sick of that.

Hello, "Union Jack Square". This is the alternative? Surely not.

Btw, I love that Douglass Adams quote. Very "WISE" man.

[desperaterobots]

Gotham City? Has he even watched a Batman film? Heh.

I love Lisa so much.

[Urbania]

If Barnett was worried about the bottom line, surely this would be one of the projects MOST likely to get through considering the amount of money the private purse will bring to it...

[Dilaz89]

Despite the fact that there will be obvious delays to the city-based projects, I'm quite optimistic that we will get something out of this government.

[samboy]

Despite the fact that there will be obvious delays to the city-based projects, I'm quite optimistic that we will get something out of this government.

ok who's hacked into Dilaz's PC?? :lol: :lol:

[desperaterobots]

Getting 'something' and getting 'something good' are entirely different things. I'm confident of one but not the other.

[Dilaz89]

Colin has generally supported funding for the next stage of NB Link which will proceed in accordance with the masterplan.

We need to argue the Waterfront on business terms. I doubt any low rise, significantly scaled back waterfront will go ahead as it will be impossible to present a business case for such a development.

[ryan79]

Well I think NB Link is a safe bet. Theres no opposition to it (except for the Schospitals argument) and IMO the most important project.

[Dilaz89]

Ken Adam who is very close to the Liberal party as I understand it is opposed to the NB link masterplan.

[ryan79]

Yeah well one dickhead doesn't count, or does it? Politics suck!

[Homeroids]

I am pretty sure we all have our little political bias but I am pretty sure CV (therefore Ken Adam) are meant to be apolitical.

That's one of the pillars of FP or what's the point?

See, all the older folk out there who are guilty of playing their games, trying to hedge us into a corner, or make others think we represent an age group, say these things because of insecurities and politicking. Let's not be like that. Speak it like it is, don't play politics, present our point of view that is flexible and never considered infallible (in other words, with humility) and let the facts do the speaking. The older "game playing" person may say this is naive? Nope, it means we have refused to loose our excitement about new things.

Again, the Douglas Adams quote.

Anything that was invented between the time you were born and your teen years is a natural part of your world. Anything invented up until your 40s is exciting and new, and you could probably get a career in it. Anything invented after your 50's is against the natural order of things.

Maybe these old folk ( and I am not referring necessarily to their age) need to study the true message in Peter Pan :).

[ryan79]

How true is that quote though.

[dazzyd]

Oh man these comebacks are doing my head in.:bash:

" We should be spending the money on fixing the health system & providing a better quality of life for the homeless & under priveleged before anything is done to our City foreshore. What a joke! What is wrong with Perth as it is? Anyway we should not be encouraging growth as there are too many people here at present. Start a new City in the regional areas to ease the burden on Suburban sprawl."
Posted by: Steve of Watermans 1:22pm today

[Perth4life]

Yeh i forgot 1.5 million people is like the world's most populated city!

[Click79]

So, I wrote a letter to the Editor of the West Australian in response to the Tony Rutherford article and the disgraceful follow up letter written in support of it. Don't know if they'll publish it. Even if they do, they will probably edit it, so here's the full letter.

Tony Rutherford spoke in his article in the West (Human Scale to enliven Dullsville, 23/09) of the need to not draw the generational battlelines over the Perth Waterfront development but the hypocrisy of this article, as was shown in the extremely offensive and patronising letter from R.D. Walsh in support of his article (Who Wants to be like Sydney or Melbourne, 24/09), is that it did just that.

As a young person, I am indeed a strong supporter of the former government's Perth Waterfront plan, but this, despite what may be implicated by Tony Rutherford's article, does not preclude me from having wisdom. Indeed, I am not only old enough to have gained a measure of this much touted wisdom but I also have the gift of foresight and vision, and an ability to use these gifts to establish a balanced and considered opinion of issues affecting the future landscape of this state, both physical and political.

In his ignorance of the opinions younger generations, Tony Rutherford spoke of the Perth Waterfront lacking support in all forums aside from the official website. This is simply not the case. Members of the younger generations’ do no call AM talk back radio stations. They do not (generally) write letters to the Editor. The younger generations voice their opinions on internet forums, blogs and social networking sites. For instance, a group on Facebook in support of the Perth Waterfront project has over 2,000 members, and this is just a fraction of the younger generation who have positive opinions about the possibility of a tourist and entertainment precinct that Perth can be proud of, the kind of precinct that young Perth people have experienced in Sydney, Melbourne and a raft of international cities.

It is this, a sense of pride in our entertainment precincts and not a desire to be like those cities that drives the support for the Perth Waterfront project. And yet, Cityvision, a group compromised of aging conservatives with little or no connection with the very generations which will inherit the very city they envisage, put forward unimaginative plans of square inland sumps, uninspiring low level structures and a revival of Barrack Square with the original name of Union Jack Square. In this day and age, where republicanism is stirring and international cities are embracing bold, distinctive architecture, such a plan would be a lingering embarrassment for all West Australian generations to come.

What almost all opponents to the previous government's plan don't seem to understand is that the key to the precinct is not in the far-fetched artistic renders of the tall towers, but rather the simplistic and functional geometric beauty of the Esplanade Square and Esplanade Circle. The buildings about it are there first and foremost to ensure a critical mass of residents and workers, needed to ensure the vibrancy of the precinct and would be subject to stringent design regulations of the highest standard possible.

The plan is based upon, and has quite possibly improved upon, aspects of Melbourne's Federation Square and Sydney's Circular Quay and Darling Harbour. The irony is that although surrounded by high rise, Circular Quay and Darling Harbour are far from elistist enclaves but world famous family and tourist-friendly precincts that all Sydney-siders can be proud of. Federation Square is an incredibly successful public open space hosting enormous crowds for such televised events as the World Cup - the kind of public open space that we in Perth can only look upon in envy.

The manner in which the plans for the Perth Waterfront has combined these elements verges on genius and yet these aspects have been lost in a barrage of irrational criticism and comparisons to Dubai and Disneyland by a vocal minority fearful of change and ignorant of the overwhelming opinion of the younger generation. And in the generational battlelines that Tony Rutherford's article has now irrevocably drawn, it is this vocal minority who now seem destined to rob the generations to come of a waterfront development they can truly be proud of and leave us with yet another watered down, underutilised embarrassment.

[Citystyle]

I wish i could write..... so coherently.