Old Thread: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=708596


Plan A (Allanah)
<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>


Plan B (Barnett)
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/2553/48910047.jpg

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/107/30974090.jpg

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/2192/94958570.jpg

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/5751/64674588.jpg

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/3254/83049992.jpg

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/3020/72637824.jpg

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/8366/35578381.jpg



Old Plans
Some old (2004) brochure...

http://gallery.me.com/alvse/100023/wf_broch_front_web_Page_1/web.jpg?ver=12422292020001http://gallery.me.com/alvse/100023/wf_broch_front_web_Page_2/web.jpg?ver=12422292070001http://gallery.me.com/alvse/100023/wf_broch_front_web_Page_3/web.jpg?ver=12422292110001
http://gallery.me.com/alvse/100023/wf_broch_back_web_Page_1/web.jpg?ver=12422292230001http://gallery.me.com/alvse/100023/wf_broch_back_web_Page_2/web.jpg?ver=12422292270001http://gallery.me.com/alvse/100023/wf_broch_back_web_Page_3/web.jpg?ver=12422292300001
http://gallery.me.com/alvse/100023/wf_broch_back_web_Page_4/web.jpg?ver=12422292330001





--------------------



Bart, I have completely changed my view on tall towers right on the river after an extended pondering moment up at Kings Park a few weeks ago.

i think there is great opportunity to create multiple inlets on this riverside stretch, the next one being in front of the concert hall.

I like the look of the PCC proposal behind the Concert Hall. It will link up nicely with the Foreshore and provided an extended area along the river. The thing that worries me with the PCC proposal is bunching the same sort of buildings (cultural) together providing another "zone" in our city. I think if those buildings were mixed use somehow I would like it better.

re: tall buildings right next to the river - quite a few people have said that if the only impediment on the previous plan was the tower on the riverfront then they wouldn't mind it being moved back somewhat. But think about the possibility of Riverside Drive going over the inlet. I really hope the State Govt don't accede to CV's wishes on that, Union Jack Square, ... It is the sort of thing that needs to be fought against.

I dont think there is any room to create a ramp over the inlet, given the close proximity to Barrack Square. The only option for a tunnel would be to start the entrance east of Barrack Square and tunnels cost way too much. I think what they will do is come up with a strategy to terminate Riverside drive at Barrack Street and then create diversions further east so that traffic no longer uses it.

I doubt the significance of Riverside Drive as a useful artery anyway. Once you basically kill it off, traffic will find successful alternate routes. Hopefully that could then be a catalyst for unscrambling the interchange for useful land purposes.

So youd remove 2 chunks of riverside drive:

- between william street and barrack street (in front of esplanade)
- between grosvenors avenue and victoria avenue. (in front of concert hall.

This then creates a loop to the riverfront from Barrack Street in front of supreme court and then up grosvenors avenue to terrace road and onto victoria avenue.

victoria avenue will then still go to the river and just be a turn onto the old riverside drive. (in front of langley park).

didn't you endorse tha inlet with on-ramp just a few posts back scraperface?

i'm glad you've had a change of that planning farce...

:p

I dont think there is any room to create a ramp over the inlet, given the close proximity to Barrack Square. The only option for a tunnel would be to start the entrance east of Barrack Square and tunnels cost way too much. I think what they will do is come up with a strategy to terminate Riverside drive at Barrack Street and then create diversions further east so that traffic no longer uses it.

I doubt the significance of Riverside Drive as a useful artery anyway. Once you basically kill it off, traffic will find successful alternate routes. Hopefully that could then be a catalyst for unscrambling the interchange for useful land purposes.

So youd remove 2 chunks of riverside drive:

- between william street and barrack street (in front of esplanade)
- between grosvenors avenue and victoria avenue. (in front of concert hall.

This then creates a loop to the riverfront from Barrack Street in front of supreme court and then up grosvenors avenue to terrace road and onto victoria avenue.

victoria avenue will then still go to the river and just be a turn onto the old riverside drive. (in front of langley park).

On the other hand, we could intergrate land uses and development into Riverside Drive (just like in the Landcorp plan) and encourage (rather than force) alternative routes to be taken....rather than remove chuncks of road or putting in one-way streets.

Removing parts of Riverside Drive has no benefit other than your personal hopes that one day Mounts Bay wont be a freeway interchange. The fact is, it always will be.

i think riverside dr is still and always will be a main artiary. especially considering they area trying to discourage use of st georges tce, people are going to need to go somewhere, and Riverside dr is the perfect spot for it. but it needs to be sunk. imagine you can either say it is too expensive and in 20 years time when Graham Farmer Fwy is three lanes and blocked every peak hour moments as well as most non-peak times we will be forced for a second tunnel. and the tunnel should be where riverside dr is now. but imagine the cost to dig it in 20 years time when all of the land has already been built on. so you can either pay for a project which could have been done for less than half the price now, or let the traffic get worse for the remainder of time.

or we can build the tunnel now, meaning there wont be the large traffic jams, for atleast 50 years when both the GFF and sunken Riverside dr have three lanes each. also by building the tunnel now, you would be encouraging people to get off wellington st and the terrace, especially if we want to see east perth to continue to grow especially for commercial developments as everyone will have to drive into the area somehow besides from going through the cbd, and considering the GFF doesn't have the best connection to the east perth area, the Riverside dr would be perfect as it would have direct access and off ramps leading directly into the east perth area. the tunnels leading into east perth can also be disguised so no-one would even realise they are there unless they are actually using them, by building over and around them with the only visual sight of the tunnel coming from the intersections on Terrace road.

so IMO, we need to sink riverside dr, make it an artiary road into and through the city and do it now.

but riverside drive doesn't serve that many people. It's never really that busy anyway. The main eastern distributer is the GF fwy and always will be.

The cost is just too great and would probably be a deal breaker in getting the Foreshore done. I'm sure a possible future route can be allowed for in the planning.

Other than having a sunken Riverside Dr (or City Southern Bypass), which I'm inclined to agree that this city needs - perhaps not now, but maybe within 20-25 years - the city also needs more southern arterial roads. Right now, all there is Mounts Bay Rd to Stirling Hwy, Kwinana Fwy, the Causeway, and GFF. We all remember a few years back when Kwinana Fwy was shut because of a pipe leak, and traffic gridlocked for hours - even affecting the north-bound routes.

There must be some new connection connecting Claremont to Applecross, and Perth to South Perth between Narrows and Causeway.

The City Southern Bypass would provide a solution to: increasing vehicular load between East Perth and West Perth + Mounts Bay Rd, and add an additional south-bound route.

Of course, there are better alternatives like light rail via Causeway and Mounts Bay Rd; improved ferry services between Applecross, UWA, City, South Perth and Burswood; and improved rail frequency.

But sinking Riverside Dr is an inevitability if we want to expand the city (whenever the time comes, be it 20 or 50 or dare I say 75 years)

you don't need to sink riverside drive to expand tha city.

I don't really want to see Riverside Dve sunk at all. Don't really see the point. Its one of the best drives in Australia. Any tourist will tell you that.

I don't really want to see Riverside Dve sunk at all. Don't really see the point. Its one of the best drives in Australia. Any tourist will tell you that.

I would still prefer the tourists enjoying the area on foot than in a car.

how can tourists enjoy tha waterfront in a car if, tha precinct doesn't allow cars thru it?

I would still prefer the tourists enjoying the area on foot than in a car.

They still can.

how can tourists enjoy tha waterfront in a car if, tha precinct doesn't allow cars thru it?

I was referring to the sinking of the whole of Riverside dve.

I think a decision should be made either way. You could build a cheaper cut and cover tunnel in parallel to Riverside Drive and Terrace Road, while the area is still grassed. Then remove Riverside Drive completely or pacify it so it is not used as a traffic thoroughfare. A significant sized/deep tunnel might require a lovely smokestack somewhere though and you can be assured no one in the CBD will want that near them.

You could take the cheaper option to keep Riverside and reroute it, but it will continue to serve as an arterial road and remain a big divider from the River. The only problem with that is as Perth grows, so will traffic problems with Riverside Drive.

Otherwise you could just terminate Riverside Drive at Victoria Ave and encourage the exclusive use of the GF freeway. Sure it will get clogged, but eventually so will Riverside Drive or an Esplanade/Langley Park Tunnel. I mean the more traffic bypasses you build, the more you encourage people to drive.

I'm not sure, but I would think any kind of tunnel along the foreshore would be very expensive and problematic due to it being reclaimed river land. I think they had real troubles with water seepage in the rail-tunnel.

FP members:
http://www.futureperth.info/joomla/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=76

It is interesting to see the philosophy of the two plans. One brought the water part way to the CBD and tall buildings part way to the river. The new one tries to bring the water all the way to the city whilst leaving the tall buildings as they are.

Would Barnett be the first foreshore proposal to bring the water to the buildings (not counting the Concert Hall arts precinct)? It seems every plan so far brings buildings to the water - and with more than 25 years worth of experience from architects and city planners (whether it be Landcorp or CityVision).. you'd think Barnett will draw experience from that?

I assume you mean all the way to the buildings - I think all the other plans didn't bring it in that far (even though the original foreshore used to be in that area).

Barnett said on ABC this morning (ironically in response to a "no to any change to the foreshore" question):

*Riverside Drive route isn't decided yet, but his preferred option is a bridge. He said that bridges can look good if well designed and low rise - but many people disagree with him.

*18 months he stated was for decent work (i.e. not minor). He said he wants to get it underway

* plans should be done in the next 6 months. The 12 months after that will be for tenders, etc. He didn't answer either way (not sure if by design) whether that would include a period for public comments.

(I'll put on the transcript when it appears on the government site)

Barnett said on ABC this morning (ironically in response to a "no to any change to the foreshore" question):

*Riverside Drive route isn't decided yet, but his preferred option is a bridge. He said that bridges can look good if well designed and low rise - but many people disagree with him.


How totally depressing ... I can't believe that there is a high possibility that there will still be a 4 lane road blocking the foreshore to the city.

How totally depressing ... I can't believe that there is a high possibility that there will still be a 4 lane road blocking the foreshore to the city.

That's the whole point of a bridge mate so as NOT to block pedestrian access. Not too sure what you're depressed about.

Its another one of those wait and see things. A bridge could be a really bad mistake and ruin the whole idea of the precinct or it could be something quite inspiring adding to the precinct.

Really have to see actual designs.

But I think thats what I liked about Labors/Landcorps plan. The fact that the city was brought to the river with an inlet created and Riverside dve going around the inlet. Also gives much more land to develop to the river rather than a big pond where grass used to be. But then thats channel 7's interpretation.

Ahh I can't decide. I can't visualise a well designed bridge that will look good in this area and it makes me nervous that even with the best minds, designers and architects on the job the outcome may just miss the mark.

Also, if the bridge is too low rise then it could become a barrier to the inlet being used for boating purposes - i'm thinking masted boats.

There is actually no easy solution that I can think of - tunnelling Riverside Drive, while possibly being the optimum solution, for this area, will require tunnel entry points which may spoil the foreshore further east which could hinder future development. Unless the tunnel is started near the causeway (not gonna happen)

And running Riverside Drive around the inlet? Well there may not be enough space now that the planned inlet is a lot bigger.

Plenty more napkins will be needed for doodling before this is sorted out.

^^ i'm with you stuwa...

That's the whole point of a bridge mate so as NOT to block pedestrian access. Not too sure what you're depressed about.

er samboy... he's depressed about having to walk under a bridge to get to tha foreshore...

seriously if that bridge gets up... ugh. :ohno:

Hang on. Where's this bridge supposed to be going?

^^ i'm with you stuwa...



er samboy... he's depressed about having to walk under a bridge to get to tha foreshore...

seriously if that bridge gets up... ugh. :ohno:

yeah that is depressing indeed. Some people just can't get a break in life. it's tough out there.

anyway on a sidenote - I've always wondered why do you care about Perth so much? are you planning on returning? (serious question)

yes i do plan on returning. my family and friends are in perth... so i have an interest...

I can't fathom how retarded a bridge would look. Without having a bunch of pylons sinking into the inlet, it would probably have to be a fancy suspension bridge which might look good if it had a span of longer than 10 metres.... :|

You guys need more imagination.

A bridge could look fantastic.

i can't wait to see to see this magical bridge will do nothing but enhance tha river!!!

i can't wait to see to see this magical bridge will do nothing but enhance tha river!!!

Thats a bit silly, and quite unfathomable given the huge number of bridges world wide that enhance a river.

I guess your bridge knowledge is right up there with street art knowledge?

That's the whole point of a bridge mate so as NOT to block pedestrian access. Not too sure what you're depressed about.

It's depressing cause the foreshore is flat, and the proposed inlet is not going to be that wide, and if you are going to have a bridge that is gonna be raised to allow boats/people underneath then it will require raised ramps on both sides that will be a total blocker.

Here were the Libs complaining about the previous plan blocking views and sitelines of the river etc. and now possibly proposing a bridge that'll have to be raised and block the views that they were so precious about.

If that's Barnett's vision than he ain't got no vision apart from mines, mines, and more mines.

Even with a decent bridge not blocking the view towards the river, how would you deal with the noise of vehicles going over it and the appearance that the cars and trucks are the feature item of the waterfront area - superceding the Bell Tower. Iknow, being a bit facetious there. And which side of the road will the Aboriginal cultural building be if the road went over the bridge. And how would pedestrians get over the road to access the foreshore. Questions that are problematic and are a bit hard to discuss without a plan.

Thats a bit silly, and quite unfathomable given the huge number of bridges world wide that enhance a river.

I guess your bridge knowledge is right up there with street art knowledge?

it's not a bridge going over a river. it's going over an inlet.

i like to think my knowledge about street art is pretty decent. i know what i like and i know what i don't.

and if your last sentence was a dig about ts street art thrad... you fool.

It's all speculation until we see some submissions. I personally don't like the idea of a bridge over the inlet, but alternatively a low key bridge could work (think Millennium Bridge in London). I'll reserve judgement until I see the submissions - I hope we get some excellent architects on this so the decision on a plan can be between some great designs - here's hoping they don't go down the Convention Centre route, with a complete dismissal of designs from world renowned architects.

have fun ... more 'speculation'

River plan has ‘water square’ as a link to city

1st July 2009, 6:00 WST

A massive city water square leading from the river towards The Esplanade will have boats and be surrounded by bars, restaurants, shops, hotels, apartments, offices and tourist attractions if the latest concept for Perth’s waterfront materialises.

New WA Government architect Steve Woodland said the inlet would be a stage for water art, performances, fireworks, theatre and celebrations.

“Just as you get hard paved town squares, you will virtually have a river or water square,” he said. It would be between William and Barrack streets and involve a massive excavation.

Premier Colin Barnett unveiled the vision last week, saying water from the Swan River would be taken to the foot of existing buildings where historically and naturally it used to be.

“That will allow ferries to come into the city for transport and for tourism,” the Premier said.

Mr Barnett said Perth was better linked to the river last century, with jetties, river transport, hotels, warehouses, shops and entertainment, adding: “It was interactive, alive and it had a vitality.”

The river needed to be reconnected and the orientation changed from an east-west alignment that created a wind tunnel. “We need a north-south alignment from the waterfront through the heart of the city through the Northbridge Link to Northbridge,” he said.

The State Government would take the lead with Perth City Council to develop the concept, but would ask private developers to play a big part in funding and building it.

The area should have a high degree of mixed-use rather than separate workplaces and living spaces to ensure the city operated close to 24 hours a day.

Buildings near the waterfront are expected to be low-rise to limit shade and the wind-tunnel effect. “If you don’t get that right, the whole thing fails,” Mr Woodland said.

His preference was to re-route Riverside Drive around the inlet to slow vehicles but offer views.

Alternatively, a bridge could be built or the road sunk.

http://www.thewest.com.au//default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=151985

Maybe Im falling for all of this propaganda and political rhetoric - but is anyone else warming up to this plan like I am?

Other than the predictable stoush over building heights, at least options like sinking Riverside Drive are still on the table. A bridge would only be acceptable if it was spectacular (this is Perth, so thats very unlikely).

Can't wait to see more details.

a bridge is unacceptable...

The only acceptable bridge would be just as expensive as digging a tunnel - which would be my preference.

What about something like this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Puente_del_Alamillo.jpg

This is the transcript of the Foreshore bit of the ABC session yesterday morning. I thought the question put to Barnett to start talk on the issue would be funny if it wasn't serious.

http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/WACabinetMinistersSearch.aspx?ItemId=132140&minister=Barnett&admin=Barnett

...
Good morning, [Caller].

[CALLER]

Ah, good morning, Premier. I would like to know why you are planning to spend big money on the foreshore in Perth, when our rail, road… rail and roads are in a mess and really need fixing? The foreshore is… foreshore is perfectly alright as it is. It can be… it can be left.

COLIN BARNETT

[Caller], look, every Government has to… to always balance out all the different areas, and yes, you’re right, there’s always demands for roads. I… I drove back last night on the Albany Highway, for example. Clearly, more passing lanes are needed along that road, and there would be hundreds of other examples. But we do need to make sure that Perth keeps up and moves forward as a city. It is a very attractive, well-planned city, but the Asia area is going ahead very quickly. Perth has to be an attractive, contemporary city, exciting for younger people.

Now, the State is not planning to spend vast amounts of money on the… the foreshore. What we are doing is designing how that can be developed, with water coming in as an inlet; what happens to Riverside Drive… whether it goes over, under or around. And then we will be inviting private sector proposals to actually invest and do the development, both the… the public part, so that there’s wide areas of public open space. Hopefully the ferries can come into the City and we’ll hav… see a lot more activity. But we are not going to use large amounts of taxpayer money on that.

GEOFF HUTCHISON

[Caller], thank you for your question.

When you say the waterfront project is going to commence in 18 months, what do you mean? Will that be minor services work? Or will that be full steam ahead?

COLIN BARNETT

I’m hoping it will be the start of construction. Now, whether that’s excavating for the inlet, or constructing a bridge for Riverside Drive to go over, who knows? But there’s…

GEOFF HUTCHISON

Is that your preferred option for Riverside Drive? Is… is it a bridge, or is it under the water?

COLIN BARNETT

Well, most people have said to me… look, the idea would be for Riverside Drive to go underneath. That is going to be very…

GEOFF HUTCHISON

Huge cost.

COLIN BARNETT

Huge cost. And I… .it was interesting, someone stopped me during the weekend and just made the point that tunnels are, sort of, dark, unsafe, not very attractive features, whereas a well designed, low-level bridge can actually look very attractive. So, I quite like the bridge idea, but I might be in a minority there. It… certainly, that is achievable with minimal costs.

GEOFF HUTCHISON

Okay, you say 18 months, that’s very close. So when are we going to see plans and funding arrangements and… and a period of public comment?

COLIN BARNETT

You will see more detailed plans by the end of this year, and that will then leave another further 12 months for expressions of interests, contracts, partnerships. Yeah, 18 months is tight, but let’s get on with it. It’s been… we’ve talked about this for decades, why not get on with it?
...

http://www.aecmag.com/images/stories/200804/c_bridge_2.jpg

http://www.rainbowskill.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/b28.jpg

we can dream the dream Nate. hey stranger things have happened (not in perth though)

Well I do like how this is moving ahead.. I'm starting to like the inlet idea, if we can get ferry services up there...

I do hope that the buildings are of a reasonable size though.

well, i suppose i can be happy with a bridge, but, it would have to be more in length to my tunnel design i showed in the last thread, in the way that the ramps would be kept away from the main section of the foreshore, so they are near the freeway and the causeway. that means their can only be the pylons supporting the bridge in and around the esplanade, but it means no road connections to either william or barrack st, as we want them to be more pedestrian friendly, but having ramps which will block access, and which will also will attract vehicles is just going to do the reverse of what we want.

so effectively think of the cahill expressway in sydney, it goes over the top of circular key, and even has a railway, something we could incorporate later into the bridge. but people can freely walk under the bridge (if thats what you wanna call it) it would also be similar to the riverside expressway in brisbane too, except our would have more activated buildings below and around it to keep it active and not become such a dead zone like in brisbane.

so basically image this bridge being the direct opposite to a tunnel that would run from the freeway through to the causeway with off/on ramps only at Hill St and Plain St, so that it would service the east perth area, act as a thorough-fare and the esplanade area would still remain pedestrian friendly.

a bridge route would be similar to this...

^^ :(

anyway i made a quick draw up of how i would like to see this development in a more 'modest' way which includes sinking riverside dr, making more open space near the narrows, and connecting the convention centre.

the yellow at the bottom is a public beach,
above it in the dark blue is a swimming pool,
the pink is development sites which would cater for 4,000 residents, and 1,000 workers plus the aboriginal museum etc, and also have a new entry point into the convention centre on the south side of the building
riverside dr would be sunk from the west side of the freeway and would resurface near the causeway, and besides from ramps leading onto the freeway (only the east side of the riverside dr would have access to the freeway) there will also be access points to plain st and victoria ave.


i didn't quite draw the freeway ramps in detail or all of them as it was kinda hard with such a space restricted map. but there would be access to the mounts bay road and the ring road around he convention centre, so each direction has access to the city, there would also be ramps from each direction of the freeway to the east direction of riverside dr. i understand if the map is confusing for anyone.
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/8092/pertho.jpg

i forgot to draw in a pedestrian bridge at the end of the inlet.

If we are getting a bridge it better be something hot like a suspension bridge, NOTHING like Brisbane's Riverside Expressway, it's fugly.

It would be cool if the bridge starts a bit further down and gradually rises so that when it crosses the water, it emerges out from between skyscrapers, crosses the water, and then is lost in another group of scrapers. But I know that isn't going to happen..

if this inlet gets up i don't imagine tha span will be wider than 100m?

tha distance between william and barrack is about 300m...

This sounds just beautiful.

River plan has ‘water square’ as a link to city
1st July 2009, 6:00 WST

A massive city water square leading from the river towards The Esplanade will have boats and be surrounded by bars, restaurants, shops, hotels, apartments, offices and tourist attractions if the latest concept for Perth’s waterfront materialises.

New WA Government architect Steve Woodland said the inlet would be a stage for water art, performances, fireworks, theatre and celebrations.

“Just as you get hard paved town squares, you will virtually have a river or water square,” he said. It would be between William and Barrack streets and involve a massive excavation.

Premier Colin Barnett unveiled the vision last week, saying water from the Swan River would be taken to the foot of existing buildings where historically and naturally it used to be.

“That will allow ferries to come into the city for transport and for tourism,” the Premier said.

Mr Barnett said Perth was better linked to the river last century, with jetties, river transport, hotels, warehouses, shops and entertainment, adding: “It was interactive, alive and it had a vitality.”

The river needed to be reconnected and the orientation changed from an east-west alignment that created a wind tunnel. “We need a north-south alignment from the waterfront through the heart of the city through the Northbridge Link to Northbridge,” he said.

The State Government would take the lead with Perth City Council to develop the concept, but would ask private developers to play a big part in funding and building it.

The area should have a high degree of mixed-use rather than separate workplaces and living spaces to ensure the city operated close to 24 hours a day.

Buildings near the waterfront are expected to be low-rise to limit shade and the wind-tunnel effect. “If you don’t get that right, the whole thing fails,” Mr Woodland said.

His preference was to re-route Riverside Drive around the inlet to slow vehicles but offer views.

Alternatively, a bridge could be built or the road sunk.

CATHY SAUNDERS and BEATRICE THOMAS

^^ already been posted by samboy

If we are getting a bridge it better be something hot like a suspension bridge, NOTHING like Brisbane's Riverside Expressway, it's fugly.



i didn't mean look like it, i meant it's use and span. the way it last for the entire length of the river and is above the ground...

^^ already been posted by samboy



i didn't mean look like it, i meant it's use and span. the way it last for the entire length of the river and is above the ground...

Hmmm could still look ugly though? Now I'm thinking I don't want riverside drive there at all... Sinking it would be really expensive, but upon thinking about it, it could mean an underground freeway, taking further pressure off St Georges Terrace.

taking further pressure off St Georges Terrace.

that is the reason i am so interested in either a tunnel or causeway along the river in place of riverside dr.

Huge cost. And I… .it was interesting, someone stopped me during the weekend and just made the point that tunnels are, sort of, dark, unsafe, not very attractive features, whereas a well designed, low-level bridge can actually look very attractive. So, I quite like the bridge idea, but I might be in a minority there. It… certainly, that is achievable with minimal costs.


hiss.

*danger, danger will robinson*

also... notice how he dodges answering whether a public consultation period would be part of tha process...

^^ you've got to be shitting me right, "tunnels are dark and unsafe" where as "well designed" (anything well designed can be attractive) "low-level bridge" even if it is attractive, how is it more functional than a tunnel for the pedestrians, the ones this projects is designed for, not the drivers in their cars who are merely driving through the tunnel with their lights on etc...

It would be nice if they decide that a ferry service is going to stop right at Esplanade, creating a Bus/Train/Ferry interchange - this is something that I would support - but then what would become of Barrack St Jetty?

I'm still apprehensive of the water square idea.

Riverside Bridge is also something that I'd like to see on paper. Perhaps a good way would be to rise before the Barrack St junction, and be about 4.5 m (to allow double decker coaches through) at the junction. As for the William St side... I don't think there can be any direct connections. Riverside Bridge would have to feed straight into the Freeway and Mounts Bay Rd.

So Riverside Dr will feed into Mounts Bay Rd, Freeway South and Freeway North. Freeway North feeds directly into William St. Maybe its for the better as well? The current Riverside Dr/William St "junction" is just unnecessarily large and pointless. It should have been grade separated right from the start.

Perhaps they can do the William St extension as well. I'm a big fan of extending William St into the roundabout on Mounts Bay Rd.

It's kind of ironic... we got rid of one bridge, only to build another in its place!


I'd like to see a more fleshed out plan before making further judgement. They better create a idea that blows my socks off - I already have a bad impression on this idea in general

^^ you've got to be shitting me right, "tunnels are dark and unsafe" where as "well designed" (anything well designed can be attractive) "low-level bridge" even if it is attractive, how is it more functional than a tunnel for the pedestrians, the ones this projects is designed for, not the drivers in their cars who are merely driving through the tunnel with their lights on etc...

Too dark? Just turn on a few lights - like the ones that need turning on in Col's head. Obviously it's a bit dark in there.

We dont have many bridges in Perth, so as shown with the architectural bridges above, it could be quite a nice statement, with surrounding buildings integrated into the ramps. Especially considering we have the upcoming bridge to Heirrison Island as well.

However it seems like they would like to encourage yachts and other boats with sails, as shown in the artists drawings, so I have my money on a re-routing of Riverside drive, up Barrack Street, along Esplanade and connecting to a fully 2 way William Street intersection.

I can imagine this already, its going to be spectacular. Im over the moon.

I'm having trouble conceptualising how they intend to make this a '24 hour a day' space when they'll be removing a bunch of land to build on with an inlet (without extending land into the river like labors plan), while at the same time "building low-rise around the inlet."

Really interested to see how they intend to achieve this.

Hmmm could still look ugly though? Now I'm thinking I don't want riverside drive there at all... Sinking it would be really expensive, but upon thinking about it, it could mean an underground freeway, taking further pressure off St Georges Terrace.

The original proposal for the sinking of Riverside Drv came out, I think, with the '96 foreshore plan (or at least one of the many incarnations of foreshore plans). This was well before the Graham Farmer Fwy.

When the GFF was built, the Causeway was reduced from 3 lanes to 2 lanes and had bus lanes added. They put in lights around the huge roundabout. Riverside Drv had huge traffic on it with direct ramps going to Fwy North.

Now Riverside Drv has nowhere near the amount of traffic on it since the GFF opened. The Causeway is no longer banked up and having Shepperton Rd blocked back to Ord rd. It was completely "releaved" since the GFF since the bulk of traffic now divert to Orrong Rd and enter the GFF off Great Eastern.

There is simply no traffic necessity to now sink Riverside Drv. I really think it's now unrealistic to expect it to be sunk because who's going to pay for it? Not private developers. If it was paid for I can tellyou now, it will cost more than the 300m Landcorp proposed for their more "visionary" proposal that included no sinking of the road.

I'm having trouble conceptualising how they intend to make this a '24 hour a day' space when they'll be removing a bunch of land to build on with an inlet (without extending land into the river like labors plan), while at the same time "building low-rise around the inlet."

Really interested to see how they intend to achieve this.

Its about changing the land usage. Currently, the esplanade buildings are mostly office, with minimal shops and cafes at ground level.

Look at how lively Northbridge is. Not a high rise within 2 city blocks.

The plan proposes 3-15 stories which will provide plenty of opportunities for apartments and hotel rooms around such a large area of activated edge.

i've gone cold on the large inlet idea. If we want to actually link the CBD to the waterfront seamlessly then building an inlet all the way up to the esplanade is not the way to go.

As for riverside drive, the best outcome from an urban design perspective is to re-route it.

Also, Colins numbers for the waterfront still don't add up. 6 months for planning then another year for contract negotiations? That's not how these things work. Also, I'd be very concerned if one or two developers has the entire waterfront for themselves. Enter Docklands Mk II.

Its about changing the land usage. Currently, the esplanade buildings are mostly office, with minimal shops and cafes at ground level.

Look at how lively Northbridge is. Not a high rise within 2 city blocks.

The plan proposes 3-15 stories which will provide plenty of opportunities for apartments and hotel rooms around such a large area of activated edge.

I still maintain we're going to need significant highrise closer back to the esplanade. 3-15 stories belongs on the waters edge.

i don't mind the inlet the idea, im open to anything and want to see more detail.

Riverside Drive carries the same amount of traffic as St Geroges Tce, and theres no talk about needing to tunnel St Georges Tce.

I really don't like the idea of a bridge, sure the thought of an inspiring bridge is appealing, the ramps and concrete required for the bridge are not.

I'm having trouble conceptualising how they intend to make this a '24 hour a day' space when they'll be removing a bunch of land to build on with an inlet (without extending land into the river like labors plan), while at the same time "building low-rise around the inlet."

Really interested to see how they intend to achieve this.

I wouldn't read too much into '24hrs a day' claims. That's just stuff that gets thrown around these days as part of any political pantomime.
You have to look at this thing from a REALISTIC angle. There are very few true 24hr cities in the world and Perth wouldn't even come close to it by population density and/or culture. No building (on any scale)will achieve that in our lifetime.
We should be aiming for something that's active 12-15hrs a day with some additional weekend activity and that would be a good result. The rest is just a pipe dream and not applicable to Perth.

I still maintain we're going to need significant highrise closer back to the esplanade. 3-15 stories belongs on the waters edge.

Yes we do but the thing is, we have plenty of blocks available for high rise in the vicinity. It will be a good chance for building owners of the stumpys to consider rebuilding to a larger scale. In fact i think it will encourage that. The water square idea is fantastic. It is entirely the best way to connect the city to the river. It brings the water basically to st georges terrace.

i like the idea as well of restoring a portion of the historical river edge.

it is very symbolic of redrawing the mistakes of the past and in projecting the intent of the project. im so bloody excited by it, youll be able to walk the entire boardwalk length from the west side all the way around to the swan bells, with the belltower chorus ringing out over the water, which will actually amplify the sound.

^^ i totally agree with scraperfan.

i don't mind the inlet the idea, im open to anything and want to see more detail.

Riverside Drive carries the same amount of traffic as St Geroges Tce, and theres no talk about needing to tunnel St Georges Tce.



but what about the fact that the PCC want to reduce the capacity of St Georges Tce, by making it one lane in each direction with a bus lanes. all those other cars will need to go some where, and also there is also the call to make wellington st more pedestrian friendly with the Link Project and also the Forrest Place upgrade, that means the riverside dr route can cater for this displaced traffic.

i've gone cold on the large inlet idea. If we want to actually link the CBD to the waterfront seamlessly then building an inlet all the way up to the esplanade is not the way to go.

As for riverside drive, the best outcome from an urban design perspective is to re-route it.

Also, Colins numbers for the waterfront still don't add up. 6 months for planning then another year for contract negotiations? That's not how these things work. Also, I'd be very concerned if one or two developers has the entire waterfront for themselves. Enter Docklands Mk II.

how can you have gone cold on an inlet idea, when you never liked it in the first place? since barnett came out and mentioned it all you have done is say how bad it is, so you haven't really changed your mind...

but i do agree that it has to be multiple developers, as the Peninsular is another example of horrid bland repetition in the design of an area.

Samboy, I'm not taking a 24-hour-a-day claim at face value, and interpret it in the same fashion you have. It's basically about it not dying at 6pm every day. I'm keen to see what they hope to achieve in terms of residents. If the building heights are modest and they restrict, where will all the residents go?

Yes we do but the thing is, we have plenty of blocks available for high rise in the vicinity. It will be a good chance for building owners of the stumpys to consider rebuilding to a larger scale. In fact i think it will encourage that.

The water square idea is fantastic. It is entirely the best way to connect the city to the river. It brings the water basically to st georges terrace.

i like the idea as well of restioring a portion of the historical river edge.

it is very symbolic of redrawing the mistakes of the past and in projecting the intent of the project. im so bloody escited by it, youll be able to walk the entire boardwalk length from the west side all the way around to the swan balles, with the belltower choris ringing out over the water, which will actually amplify the sound.

Aren't they forced to dappen the sound of the bells?

For FP people - go to the FP forum ...
http://www.futureperth.info/joomla/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=87

nah i dont think so bart. its sound is set by the actual capabilities of the glass to handle the sound.

i thought it was the carrillion bells forced to be muted?

also, good points docker! here here!

you agree with me on almost everything (apart from the subiaco stadium locaton).

yes for Kitchener Park!! :D

perhaps its my inner planner, however I think the obsession with maintaining a fast moving car route right through the waterfront is way low on the list of priorities we need to be thinking about.

what about the movement of people to the waterfront? instead of cars moving right through it?

Its about changing the land usage. Currently, the esplanade buildings are mostly office, with minimal shops and cafes at ground level.

Look at how lively Northbridge is. Not a high rise within 2 city blocks.

The plan proposes 3-15 stories which will provide plenty of opportunities for apartments and hotel rooms around such a large area of activated edge.

Everything you're saying is correct, I'm just saying I'm just having trouble marrying the idea of a massive inlet, with enough surrounding land to do 'low-rise' around the inlet and 15 story mixed use. There's a finite amount of land there. I guess it's a failure of my imagination at this stage.

nah i dont think so bart. its sound is set by the actual capabilities of the glass to handle the sound.
..

I am pretty sure I heard ages ago that they have to be muted at most times. Can anyone confirm?

perhaps its my inner planner, however I think the obsession with maintaining a fast moving car route right through the waterfront is way low on the list of priorities we need to be thinking about.

what about the movement of people to the waterfront? instead of cars moving right through it?

I agree - why should we have a fast moving, high volume traffic road (ala the freeway) along the best bit (potentially) of the city.

perhaps its my inner planner, however I think the obsession with maintaining a fast moving car route right through the waterfront is way low on the list of priorities we need to be thinking about.

what about the movement of people to the waterfront? instead of cars moving right through it?

but what if the fast moving vehicles are above the pedestrians, meaning the pedestrians don't even need to consider them, like with a tunnel or causeway, that way with all the vehicles travelling on that path, they won't be on the other streets, making it easier for the pedestrians to cross other roads to get to the foreshore...

also meaning all the other streets can have wider footpaths meaning more alfresco areas and more room to walk and sit etc...

definately. i welcome the discouraging of through straffic by forcing people to turn north up barrack street and re-routed along esplanade and down william street.

if you think about where people are trying to get to, its just the lazy option to take riverside drive to the freeway south from the causeway.

those people should be using the highways on the south side if you are wanting to go south and if you want to go north from the causeway, youve got your freeway entry on wellington street. if all that fails, you would still have the option of the new re-routed way.

definately. i welcome the discouraging of through straffic by forcing people to turn north up barrack street and re-routed along esplanade and down william street.

if you think about where people are trying to get to, its just the lazy option to take riverside drive to the freeway south from the causeway.

those people should be using the highways on the south side if you are wanting to go south and if you want to go north from te causeway, youve got your freeway entry on wellington street. if all that fails, you would still have th eoption of the new re-routed way.

but to get to the wellington street ramps means you still have to go through the city, meaning all you are doing is moving the through traffic to other streets...

but what if the fast moving vehicles are above the pedestrians, meaning the pedestrians don't even need to consider them, like with a tunnel or causeway, that way with all the vehicles travelling on that path, they won't be on the other streets, making it easier for the pedestrians to cross other roads to get to the foreshore...

also meaning all the other streets can have wider footpaths meaning more alfresco areas and more room to walk and sit etc...

id support a tunnel, however I dont think the cost-benefit warrants it.

A bridge is great, except for the ramps and support structures. If these issues can be addressed in an aesthetically pleasing and pedestrian friendly manner, I'd happily support it.

However, as said before we basically have no detail, just concepts, this debate would be so much interesting if we had some real plans to talk about.

Samboy, I'm not taking a 24-hour-a-day claim at face value, and interpret it in the same fashion you have. It's basically about it not dying at 6pm every day. I'm keen to see what they hope to achieve in terms of residents. If the building heights are modest and they restrict, where will all the residents go?

This is the old argument (and a favorite on this forum) about whether modest height and density are mutually exclusive. I don't believe they are.
Additionally there's no shortage of land that can be built on around the city.
Anyway... I'll agree to disagree.

but you have routes multiple routes through st georges terrace and wellington street.

and you still have access from mounts bay road from the esplanade and also from the william street connection, if it is diverted.

people are making out like this riverside drive freeway connection is the jugular vein of perth city when its not. the hysteria over keeping it is making me laugh.

^^ i totally agree with scraperfan.



but what about the fact that the PCC want to reduce the capacity of St Georges Tce, by making it one lane in each direction with a bus lanes. all those other cars will need to go some where, and also there is also the call to make wellington st more pedestrian friendly with the Link Project and also the Forrest Place upgrade, that means the riverside dr route can cater for this displaced traffic.



how can you have gone cold on an inlet idea, when you never liked it in the first place? since barnett came out and mentioned it all you have done is say how bad it is, so you haven't really changed your mind...

but i do agree that it has to be multiple developers, as the Peninsular is another example of horrid bland repetition in the design of an area.

lets not get bogged down in what will happen to traffic. It will sort itself out as these things always do.

Just re-iterating my former points, docker. I am willing to accept an inlet/water feature so long as it takes up no more than around a quarter of the current esplanade, as per the previous plan.

My preference is for a large square with water feature. Building will be up to 50st on the corners of Barrack and William streets and heights will continually decrease from there to 15-20 storeys on the waters edge/mounts bay area. Podiums up to 5 levels will ensure that wind is not an issue in the precinct.

but you have routes multiple routes through st georges terrace and wellington street.

and you still have access from mounts bay road from the esplanade and also from the william street connection, if it is diverted.

people are making out like this riverside drive freeway connection is the jugular vein of perth city when its not. the hysteria over keeping it is making me laugh.

ditto. I couldnt care less that Sue and Gerald from Byford will have to spend a dreaded extra 4 minutes travelling through the city in their Toyota Prado.

This is the old argument (and a favorite on this forum) about whether modest height and density are mutually exclusive. I don't believe they are.
Additionally there's no shortage of land that can be built on around the city.
Anyway... I'll agree to disagree.

I'm not making that argument at all :) I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder where the residents will go (the residents who are supposed to help activate the place after 6pm). I'm curious, since the 15 story buildings are to be 'mixed use', so even at a 50/50 office/resi split, you'll probably wind up with too few residents in the area to make any impact.

I'm not looking at the foreshore as a silver bullet to solve the cities low population problem -- we do need cheaper inner city housing at higher densities, university campus + student housing, etc etc etc. I'm just hoping this plan will really make a provision for as many residents as possible. The city needs them!

i'm not so much thinking about the fact that people are driving, just that they are taking up space on the road, meaning more capacity is needed in the city for the roads which could otherwise be used to make the city more pedestrian friendly. that is my perspective of wanting the riverside dr...

by having more connections to the freeway from more areas would just mean there are no heavy spots for traffic meaning no where is to built up with traffic, you are more or less are localising the traffic once they have got of the freeway, and are dispersing the vehicals.

I'm not making that argument at all :) I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder where the residents will go (the residents who are supposed to help activate the place after 6pm). I'm curious, since the 15 story buildings are to be 'mixed use', so even at a 50/50 office/resi split, you'll probably wind up with too few residents in the area to make any impact.

I'm not looking at the foreshore as a silver bullet to solve the cities low population problem -- we do need cheaper inner city housing at higher densities, university campus + student housing, etc etc etc. I'm just hoping this plan will really make a provision for as many residents as possible. The city needs them!

Yeah I agree. Ironically, cheap and foreshore are definitely mutually exclusive so the answer to density may lie outside of this project.

We dont have many bridges in Perth, so as shown with the architectural bridges above, it could be quite a nice statement, with surrounding buildings integrated into the ramps. Especially considering we have the upcoming bridge to Heirrison Island as well.

However it seems like they would like to encourage yachts and other boats with sails, as shown in the artists drawings, so I have my money on a re-routing of Riverside drive, up Barrack Street, along Esplanade and connecting to a fully 2 way William Street intersection.

I can imagine this already, its going to be spectacular. Im over the moon.

we had to recreate a small pocket of water for perth to get an 'architectural' marvel...

and what? we only have a massive river to do a proper bridge but...

shit. a. brick.

I'm curious, since the 15 story buildings are to be 'mixed use', so even at a 50/50 office/resi split, you'll probably wind up with too few residents in the area to make any impact.



I can think of many cities around the world that are bustling in areas that have 3,4,5 stories max. Especially european cities. Northbridge is noticeably busier than East Perth, despite having fewer residents.

Also, as Samboy said - this is prime realestate, and will NOT be cheap for residents, thats very obvious.

Of course Perth needs more CBD residents (are you one? if not, why not? - not being personal, the question is for everyone), but making a provision for "as many residents as possible" is not the way top go in this location.

As Dilaz and others have mentioned, the right way to go is to have a nice sloping buidling height topography, going gradually up from the foreshore to St Georges tce.

i'm not so much thinking about the fact that people are driving, just that they are taking up space on the road, meaning more capacity is needed in the city for the roads which could otherwise be used to make the city more pedestrian friendly. that is my perspective of wanting the riverside dr...

by having more connections to the freeway from more areas would just mean there are no heavy spots for traffic meaning no where is to built up with traffic, you are more or less are localising the traffic once they have got of the freeway, and are dispersing the vehicals.

travelling by car in and thru tha city should be a 'disincentive'...

you do this by making a vehicle thru tha city a 'non-priority', so yes you if you see traffic banked up... good. this means cars aren't zooming about...

I can think of many cities around the world that are bustling in areas that have 3,4,5 stories max. Especially european cities. Northbridge is noticeably busier than East Perth, despite having fewer residents.

Also, as Samboy said - this is prime realestate, and will NOT be cheap for residents, thats very obvious.

Of course Perth needs more CBD residents (are you one? if not, why not? - not being personal, the question is for everyone), but making a provision for "as many residents as possible" is not the way top go in this location.

As Dilaz and others have mentioned, the right way to go is to have a nice sloping buidling height topography, going gradually up from the foreshore to St Georges tce.

Of course! I'm not suggesting that that you can't have active streets without highrise. Beaufort St, Oxford St, they're all active without being covered in high density residential towers.

What I'm saying is that I'm getting a Darling Harbour vibe from this proposal; lots of shopping/restaurants/bars etc, a convention centre, probably a musuem of some kind, and a traffic bridge. Sure, Darling Harbour does just fine without high density residential plonked in the middle. It's just that it does have the benefit of having a casino, a huge hotel, an IMAX cinema, and, you know, the Sydney CBD.

Looking at it in the context of our own city: Perth is devoid of any meaningful population, despite recent growth. This could be a really good opportunity to inject residents into the CBD. It will be great if this development is so successful that it manages to spur development on it's own merits -- "I just have to live near the new Waterfront!" -- but actually embedding residents into the plan could help establish that 'active place' that could make the development come alive, and spur that further development.

And yeah, in the same way that Northbridge/Mt Lawley/Leederville show that you don't need high-density living to activate streets, East Perth shows you can't just open restaurants and cafes and expect vibrancy. Closer to the point, Barrack Square shows that you can't just open a few restaurants and a pub, even with yachts and ferries and a 'landmark' (and now a ferris wheel!), and get back an active place.

As far as I can tell, Northbridge and the like bustle because they're not monocultures. In our city, I'm anxious about the Waterfront becoming just that. I'll concede that catering for as many residents as possible in this 'prime real-estate' might not be the solution to avoid that. But if the aim is to have an active place after 6pm, I don't see how more residents can hurt - not in this town any way.

(Just want to reassert my original point, though - I'm not saying residents = activity, but 'low-scale development around the inlet + "15 story mixed use" doesn't appear to leave much room for any meaningful injection of CBD residents, which might be a missed opportunity. Won't know until we see the plans though.)

^^^
Oh yeah, this *will* turn out like Darling Harbour, or the Auckland Viaduct, or any number of similar souless redevelopments around the world.

I would bet my lat dollar on that.

I'll bet my quad dollar on it too then.

tha govt should release lots for cheapo apartments near tha freeway interchange.

:)

I have been having a look at the constraints on the site and it isn't an easy job designing it up. Not being a greenfield site makes it difficult in itself, but with the services that are going through the centre of the site makes it even worse. After looking at it I can see why the layout was done the way it was in the previous plan.

I think we should wait for some more formal plans before accepting/rejecting what Barney has in store for us.

Not accepting or rejecting it - but just having a look to think of what could go in there. And it is an interesting thing to try and do, because you find out what is hard and/or expensive to do and what seems to work and what doesn't.

Yeah thats all fine.



I just think all of us are going to be bitterly disapointed when the actual designs come out.



Hope I'm wrong though.

From the various Barnett/Day/State Architect comments, etc. put out, I expect:

* a big inlet using up a lot of the Esplanade land (resulting in the need to move the sewer and water large diameter lines (and maybe the drainage ones)
* maybe water fountains/lights in the water area
* the Aboriginal cultural building at the end of William Street
* a car bridge over the mouth of the inlet
* low rise buildings around the edge and maybe medium rise ones facing Mounts Bay Road (if there is room)
* maybe a ferry drop off area near the train station
* not a lot else, because I suspect there won't be much if anything further west where the apartment buildings, cable car, boardwalk and beach were in the previous plan. If there is I expect very low rise.

We will see. The indicitave plans will probably take up most of this year. A year to design up properly. A few months for comments, etc (which they might skip). Months of review. Then a year or so for approvals, etc. I could be wrong, but I'd be surprised if it gets started in 18 months. I reckon it would be pushing towards the time of the next election.

Why did Barnett announce this before anything was set in stone? It gives me the impression that "hey, I've got a idea, it goes something like this... no we haven't got any experienced people to say what it would really look like, but give me a few months and I'll get back to you". It seems to me this kind of announcement should be reserved for behind closed doors.

Or is this just a way to get people feel they are part of the process? Since for the Landcorp project, to the general The West Australian reading public, it seems that the project was how it is, as it is, and nothing could be changed - of course we knew better, but they don't. And they outnumber us.

Wasting time redesigning. Could just go right ahead with Labors plan. And watered (no pun intended) it down a little. There was nothing wrong with the ground works concept.

Yeah thats all fine.



I just think all of us are going to be bitterly disapointed when the actual designs come out.



Hope I'm wrong though.

I think we should wait for some more formal plans before accepting/rejecting what Barney has in store for us.

contradiction much?

Why did Barnett announce this before anything was set in stone? It gives me the impression that "hey, I've got a idea, it goes something like this... no we haven't got any experienced people to say what it would really look like, but give me a few months and I'll get back to you". It seems to me this kind of announcement should be reserved for behind closed doors.

Or is this just a way to get people feel they are part of the process? Since for the Landcorp project, to the general The West Australian reading public, it seems that the project was how it is, as it is, and nothing could be changed - of course we knew better, but they don't. And they outnumber us.


"barney isnt doing anything except change names of departments etc"

"why is he telling us he is doing something, he should just go ahead and do it"

i think the stance has to be one or the other dont u think? by the way this isnt just directed at you. its directed at a lot of people who lately i just dont understand. at least we know he is working on getting something happening.

he is working on the waterfront plan, there will be an inlet, no ultra tall building and will be low rise around the inlet. thats all we know for now. so everyone calm the fuck down til we know more. then, if necessary, get upset. im quite surprised by some of the nonstop whinging since we heard this fairly vague announcement, especially by bart as he tends to be more sensible than most but he has lost his mind the last few days.

Wasting time redesigning. Could just go right ahead with Labors plan. And watered (no pun intended) it down a little. There was nothing wrong with the ground works concept.

seriously - get the fuck over it. that plan is now dead. we need to now judge follow up plans (like this one when it comes out) on its merits. the previous one was great in most parts but the fact is its over.

Sanj - To answer your question, I think this site can have the ability to influence impressionable young minds one way or another to the point where they stop exercising any of their own rational thought process and logic.

Case in point - PCEC and BellTower. The 2 structures have been constantly and consistently labelled as SHIT on here. I'm not saying they're great but there are some elements of each bldg that are positive however it's almost sacrilegious to bring it up. Brainwashed much?

Also a lot of people here may be interested in architecture or have planning background etc but they clearly do NOT understand politics and the difference between rhetoric vs action as well as perception vs reality. I'm not saying I'm an expert however one tends to learn a lot about the above through dealings in the global/multinational corporate world. Large global corporations and govts have many similarities when it comes to politics. Those who haven't really experienced that (or literally involved in politics) will not understand. This is evident by the common 'shoot from the hip' reactions to any announcement at face value.

Lastly, there's still a lot of baggage about Labor losing the state election which clouds the minds of many who fell 'in love' with nice renders which hinders objectivity.

Carry on Kids.... have fun.

Case in point - PCEC and BellTower. The 2 structures have been constantly and consistently labelled as SHIT on here. I'm not saying they're great but there are some elements of each bldg that are positive however it's almost sacrilegious to bring it up. Brainwashed much?


Yep fair point.

The negativity of people in this town is contagious*. It doesn't help when people (including forumers on here) have a poor understanding of commercial realities.

Look at the exterior of Melbourne's new convention centre - and tell me ours looks boring. You could fall asleep looking at it FFS

*yes this statement is somewhat ironic

Page of comment by Paul Murray today about the foreshore in today's West. p21. I will post it this afternoon if no-one else gets around to it.

I agree on the negativity re: Bell Tower. Mostly it is ok - just could have been so much better. re: PCEC - there is plenty to dislike about it.

Sanj - To answer your question, I think this site can have the ability to influence impressionable young minds one way or another to the point where they stop exercising any of their own rational thought process and logic.

Case in point - PCEC and BellTower. The 2 structures have been constantly and consistently labelled as SHIT on here. I'm not saying they're great but there are some elements of each bldg that are positive however it's almost sacrilegious to bring it up. Brainwashed much?

Also a lot of people here may be interested in architecture or have planning background etc but they clearly do NOT understand politics and the difference between rhetoric vs action as well as perception vs reality. I'm not saying I'm an expert however one tends to learn a lot about the above through dealings in the global/multinational corporate world. Large global corporations and govts have many similarities when it comes to politics. Those who haven't really experienced that (or literally involved in politics) will not understand. This is evident by the common 'shoot from the hip' reactions to any announcement at face value.

Lastly, there's still a lot of baggage about Labor losing the state election which clouds the minds of many who fell 'in love' with nice renders which hinders objectivity.

Carry on Kids.... have fun.

I agree that some people on this forum fail to understand the realities of politics and its effect on descisions that affect all Western Australians - however, there will always be moaning and goaning on this forum when plans fail to set a high level of perceived quality. The landcorp (read landcorp, not Labor - the Gov't at the time was just spruiking it) was of a high quality and people on this site appreciated that.

I agree that some people on this forum fail to understand the realities of politics and its effect on descisions that affect all Western Australians - however, there will always be moaning and goaning on this forum when plans fail to set a high level of perceived quality. The landcorp (read landcorp, not Labor - the Gov't at the time was just spruiking it) was of a high quality and people on this site appreciated that.

i agree, but that's my point - we havent even seen a plan, yet ppl have decided it has already "failed to set a high level of perceived quality"

Sanj - To answer your question, I think this site can have the ability to influence impressionable young minds one way or another to the point where they stop exercising any of their own rational thought process and logic.

Case in point - PCEC and BellTower. The 2 structures have been constantly and consistently labelled as SHIT on here. I'm not saying they're great but there are some elements of each bldg that are positive however it's almost sacrilegious to bring it up. Brainwashed much?

This site has not changed my opinion on the Bell Tower of PCEC. I love the Bell Tower and really don't mind the exhibition centre... we aren't all impressionable like you might think :p

As for the foreshore I am sitting on neutral atm.. I admit I am scared its going to turn out shit though (who can live up to the last proposal :)).

I will admit though that this forum can set my mood for the day, depending on the news :p

someone post the opinion piece from paul murray from the Worst up here.

was a good read.. pity Citynovision was mentioned too many times.. how comes future perth gets no mention. how comes they have so much pulling power. :bash:

paul murray is probably a lover of ken adam.

there was also a piece from a member of the PCC yth advisory panel. good reads overall.

perhaps paul murray isn't aware of FP...

seriously - get the fuck over it. that plan is now dead. we need to now judge follow up plans (like this one when it comes out) on its merits. the previous one was great in most parts but the fact is its over.

Its true, why re-invent the wheel and waste money? Makes no sense.

Sanj - To answer your question, I think this site can have the ability to influence impressionable young minds one way or another to the point where they stop exercising any of their own rational thought process and logic.

Case in point - PCEC and BellTower. The 2 structures have been constantly and consistently labelled as SHIT on here. I'm not saying they're great but there are some elements of each bldg that are positive however it's almost sacrilegious to bring it up. Brainwashed much?

Also a lot of people here may be interested in architecture or have planning background etc but they clearly do NOT understand politics and the difference between rhetoric vs action as well as perception vs reality. I'm not saying I'm an expert however one tends to learn a lot about the above through dealings in the global/multinational corporate world. Large global corporations and govts have many similarities when it comes to politics. Those who haven't really experienced that (or literally involved in politics) will not understand. This is evident by the common 'shoot from the hip' reactions to any announcement at face value.

Lastly, there's still a lot of baggage about Labor losing the state election which clouds the minds of many who fell 'in love' with nice renders which hinders objectivity.

Carry on Kids.... have fun.

I think thats rather condescending. A lot of people on here agree with each other and already share those perceptions.

A lot of people, like myself, struggle to switch perception from idealism to realism, especially in a development forum dedicated to enthusiastic people.

Frustration born from politics isn't necessarily a lack of understanding or acceptance.

frustration in many cases comes from the lack of understanding and unrealistic expectations.
Anyway it wasn't a personal dig at anyone but I'm the last person here to pull any punches. Take it within that context.

frustration in many cases comes from the lack of understanding and unrealistic expectations.
Anyway it wasn't a personal dig at anyone but I'm the last person here to pull any punches. Take it within that context.

Perhaps. But sometimes that frustration can be born from WHY the system works that way rather than the HOW.

Knowing how things are doesn't necessarily mean you can tolerate it :)


ps I'm talking from business politics experience only here. Maybe if your making the decisions its different.

someone post the opinion piece from paul murray from the Worst up here.
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=9&ContentID=152439

A mini-Darling Harbour could finally become a reality
2nd July 2009, 15:00 WST

It seems like we’ve gone from The Jetsons to The Way We Were with Premier Colin Barnett’s new plan for Perth’s river frontage.

While the Carpenter government’s futuristic, Dubai-on-Swan concept got many older Sandgropers hot and bothered with its glass spires and the kitsch cygnet-shaped island, Colin’s Puddle may put everybody back to sleep.

I should say at the outset that I’m loath to criticise this latest idea for the foreshore because there have been about a dozen blueprints over the past 20 years with very little progress. Anything might well be better than nothing.

The best part of this proposal is that it is timed to start within this term of government, which creates a sense of political certainty, and it could serve as the seeds of something much bigger as development eventually winds its way towards the Narrows. A mini-Darling Harbour at the foot of The Esplanade could create a lively precinct hard up against the CBD.

There is a certain simplicity in the proposal to return the river to its old shoreline that is immediately attractive. On first blush it seems to address the problem of the physical barrier between the river and the city, but at what cost and how effectively?

The Premier says it is a modest plan. That immediately sets alarm bells ringing.

We should remember that the initial ill-fated plans for the Belltower had it as a much grander edifice set within the river and with the water filling part of the space now under consideration. It suffered the fate of many Perth plans in being ground down by fear to something that lacks impact and that became a wasted opportunity.

While the new outline — you can hardly call it a plan — is sketchy, it is clear that a substantial part of Perth’s grassy frontage will become water. I’ve been a critic of the front lawn and its suburban metaphor for decades, and maybe drowning is a fitting end.

But the loss of so much potentially exploitable premium CBD land must be taken into any accounting of the cost of the new approach.

Existing landowners to the north of the site have lobbied hard to stop their towers being built out by any foreshore plan, but such a fate is suffered by many in developing cities around the world. While their complaints are understandable, the greater good is for the city to get this important development right, not just to protect their views.

The biggest problem with the proposal is the one which has dogged this debate for generations. What to do with Riverside Drive and its traffic? The flow is less than it used to be, thanks to the Northbridge tunnel, but it remains a significant east-west conduit.

Mr Barnett’s proposal seems to draw much from the CityVision lobby group’s waterfront principles document showing Riverside Drive becoming a bridge over the river inlet that goes halfway up the existing grass towards The Esplanade, between the projections of Sherwood Court and Howard Street.

It’s likely that this bridge will become the sticking point for many people when they start to envisage what Mr Barnett’s proposal will look like in reality.

I once obtained an undertaking of sorts from Richard Court on radio in the early part of this decade that Riverside Drive would eventually be put underground, at least in part, to reconnect the city with the river.

However, cost killed that proposal back then and it’s hard to see any government committing to an expensive tunnel in the foreseeable future, given our Budget projections. Public money remains a major problem that Mr Barnett conceded in a speech to the Urban Development Institute last week.

“We do need to connect our city to its waterfront and we need to change the orientation of the city itself so it is not simply an east-west alignment, with the wind tunnel effect, but you also start to get a north-south alignment from the waterfront, through the heart of the city, through the Northbridge Link and to Northbridge,” he said.

“We do not have a definitive plan, we do not have a grand vision that is about to be imposed upon the city and its people.

“But what I would like to assure you is that the planning of that will start as of today and the objective is that within 18 months we will see physical construction starting to take place on that site.”

Mr Barnett made it clear that the Government and the Perth City Council would set the broad concepts, but the rest, principally the cash, would come from the private sector.

The Premier then went to the issue of Riverside Drive, calling it “a critical factor”.

“It’s a beautiful drive, people like to drive along the river and see the city on one side, with water on the other side,” he said.

“But to bring the water in, logically, Riverside Drive either has to go over the water, or under the water, or around the water.”

It seems to me that if you’re going to start building in 18 months, the decision to go over or under — around isn’t a sensible option, putting cars into a pedestrian precinct — must be pretty well settled, given the technical difficulties facing tunnels and bridges.

And my bet would be that a lack of money will push the decision in favour of CityVision’s bridge — high enough for substantial boats to pass under — which just seems to reinstitute the physical barrier that has plagued this part of the city for so long.

With the rest of Riverside Drive from the Causeway to the Narrows still acting as a hostile, car-dominant environment, the bridge over Colin’s Puddle seems to offer limited benefits.

And so we return to The Way We Were.

paul.murray@wanews.com.au

Letters for publication: letters@wanews.com.au

PAUL MURRAY

This is the p20 article next to the above posted one:


Forget 'dull' and think 'innovative' on river
Don't blow the rare opportunity to develop the waterfront says Elizabeth Shaw

After over 20 years of debate and 12 concept plans, are we really to believe that ground will be broken on the Perth waterfront development in 18 months time?

For so long Perth has plodded along in faithful acceptance of its "Dullsville" moniker, stymieing any attempts of boldness and creative design by resting on its laurels as the lifestyle capital of Australia.

I moved from Melbourne to Perth 5 & 1/2 years ago and feel lucky to live in such a beautiful part of the world. However, I don't accept that our relaxed way of life, gorgeous beaches and temperate climes are mutually exclusive with a city that provides a high-density, cosmopolitan, urbane experience for residents and visitors alike.

Colin Barnett's plans are light on detail, but he concedes the sketches are a "more modest concept" which combines a mixture of civic, commercial, residential, retail, education and cultural areas.

For a city so concerned with being "no-hum", the Premier unveiling a new vision for the waterfront described as "modest" isn't the bold leadership Perth needs.

On the positive side, the sketches are easy on the eye and provide a much-needed vitality to the waterfront area. The project — like any development of that area — will succeed in connecting the CBD with the river. The low-rise nature of the development is likely to be less offensive to the change-resistant or the development-opposed and in that sense is more likely to come to fruition. However, after so much time, energy and emotional investment, are we really going to settle for something that seems so, well. . . dull?

While I understand the reluctance to build up the waterfront, I think our fear of high rise is unsustainable when Perth's population is projected to hit 4.2 million by 2056 and we are already one of the most sprawled cities in the world.

We need to be proactive about our growth and plan how we can creatively, attractively and sustainably accommodate our burgeoning population. One of the current problems with the Perth CBD is the relatively small number of residents compared with other capital cities. Perth has the "donut" problem that Melbourne had several decades ago where people come into the city for work and head back to the suburbs at nightfall. Building the critical mass in the CBD is essential to create the development and services that follow on — restaurants and cafes, cinemas, late-night book stores and supermarkets.

Residents are an essential part of that critical mass, because they keep a space activated during the evenings and weekends when the working population vacate. We need residents to keep the foreshore activated, too. However, the low-rise development in the Premier's plans appears to make little provision for significant amounts of housing.

It's also vital when dealing with such premier real estate to make sure it doesn't become an enclave for the wealthy. An essential part in creating vibrancy is diversity — as well as deluxe apartments we need lower-cost models to attract first-homeowners.

In addition to high-end shopping we need bustling weekend markets. As well as opening trendy bars, it would be of great benefit to encourage Perth's live music scene with some great new venues.

Perth's identity crisis stems largely from our lack of originality (don't get me started on the Ferris wheel). If, after several decades, we're going to press forward and develop our treasured waterfront, we have an incredible and unprecedented opportunity to create a point of difference. We need to be creative, innovative and risk-taking.

The Premier's "building of national significance which celebrates Australia's Aboriginal history and heritage" has the potential to be this point of difference.

Tourists and residents alike would benefit tremendously from a celebration and appreciation of indigenous history and culture, and this building — if designed in consultation with the Nyoongar people and in a culturally sensitive way — could play an important role in making the city more socially inclusive.

If done on a grand scale, the building could become a world-class indigenous learning centre, with museum space, a small cinema for indigenous films, activities for school groups, gallery space, room for community-building and an area for reflection.

Now that would be a source of pride for Perth.

We also need to consider the role of young people in developing the waterfront.

Perth continues to suffer a "brain drain" of young professionals leaving our shores for bigger cities and more exciting opportunities and experiences.

A successful city needs to be able to develop and retain local talent, and attract the best from elsewhere to contribute to the economy and to our society.

A big part of this is because of our inner city experience failing to engage and inspire our young people.

Charles Landry, who became Perth's "thinker in residence" during the 2007 discussions on the future of Perth, reported that there was a groundswell of deep frustration within groups of young people who have the desire and energy to contribute to Perth but have not been utilised in moving the city forward.

I hope the development will show us how far we've come, not how far we've got to go.

Elizabeth Shaw is a member of the City of Perth Youth Advisory Council

Yep fair point.


Look at the exterior of Melbourne's new convention centre - and tell me ours looks boring. You could fall asleep looking at it FFS

*yes this statement is somewhat ironic

Im not attacking you tbor, but whats wrong with the exterior of Melbs new ECC ??
Have you noticed the old pump house thats encased in glass ? or the huge over hang of the roof ??
There is nothing boring about it...:bash:

Whats the chance of this newer shittier design by the Liberals of the city foreshore actually going ahead and seeing progress.... This one is... a fucking waste of space, Labour had a better concept.

It'll be best for Liberal knobs to put there full concentration on the Northbridge Link as that eyesore has been left undeveloped for far too long. Plus this city need more affordable and smart location residential apartments.

Im not attacking you tbor, but whats wrong with the exterior of Melbs new ECC ??
Have you noticed the old pump house thats encased in glass ? or the huge over hang of the roof ??
There is nothing boring about it...:bash:

Apologies if i offended. I was in Melbourne last week, and I went to check out your new convention centre, its a great building btw.

One of the biggest complaints of PCEC is how it looks from above. It has been labelled by the local press as a 'convention shed'. At ground level its not boring at all IMO. I'd argue that Melbourne's new ECC looks similarly featureless from above, maybe even more so. But its best features are viewed from ground level... just like PCEC. My point is not about ECC's design (I like it), its about the bad press PCEC has received. I think the Perth media is a little insecure about PCEC, and its unjustified at times.

Now back to the Waterfront discussion :okay:

I'm glad that people are so against this. But I do think the public don't care so much. They don't seem to think anything about it if its boring, but its if its too radical they get all emotional.

Because boring has no impact. It looks the same as what we already have, so why bother shouting and complaining?

I wonder how 140william actually got through since the design is so "radical" and breaks the East West mantra.

Because boring has no impact. It looks the same as what we already have, so why bother shouting and complaining?

I wonder how 140william actually got through since the design is so "radical" and breaks the East West mantra.

+ Perth Arena

What are people's thoughts on the 2008 plan's proposed treatment of Riverside Drive?

I can't help but feel that the Riverside Drive "issue" has been overblown and overanalysed. The proposal of the previous plan to leave it at-grade but downsize and redivert it was a sensible one, I think, especially considering the high cost of the tunnel/bridge alternatives (which would not be without their own significant impacts).

As much as I dislike car dependence and want the waterfront redevelopment to put pedestrians first, I feel that the precinct could still work really well with an at-grade Riverside Drive, and might even be livened up somewhat by the presence of cars. From memory, the attitude of the 2008 plan's designers was "cars are okay," and in this instance, I'm inclined to agree.

Alternatively, the idea of terminating Riverside Drive at Barrack St (as someone here suggested a few posts back) sounds better to me than a bridge or tunnel.

cars travelling slowly = good.

The simplest, chepeast and most logical option is just to make riverside drive a city street from barrack to william and make mounts bay road 2 way to the fwy onramp.

A riverside drive bridge would probably cost around $50m give or take. If the government wants a bridge, it must be pedestrian only.

Barnett's plan is pathetic and a very illogical and badly thought out response to counter Carpenter's 'vision' for the area.

Why would you spend all that money on earthmoving prime real estate to create an inlet to then squeeze a few small sheds onto the remaining land.
Like others have said here there is plenty of water in that area and just use the latest plan, which im sure after public consultations would be watered down to nothing anyway.

If Labor hadnt taken so long to get things going we would have had some works commenced in that area. That being said I hope nothing gets done in this area until they have a decent development proposal.

yeah I agree, I hope the stupid libs stop all planning and construction until labor gets in power and build all the nice thing we want. stupid barney I hate him. Stupid plans!!!
i'm moving to Melbourne. I hate the PCEC. Did I mention barney is clueless.

^^farkoff we're full!

^^farkoff we're full!

of unsustainable ideas

hahaha. perhaps. perhaps.

Will there ever be a thread where Samboy doesn't come in and talk about everyones naive, unrealistic expectations? :P

All I want Barney to include in his "vision" from the previous "Landcorp" design is the Sky Garden which can be built closer to the city to overcome this phobia of building high rise right on the foreshore, The Cable Cars to Kings Park and a Circular inlet instead of the norm yawn rectangular.

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg293/bojach/untitled.jpg
Clean slate. Make the circle larger..Done ;)

Plans are like this and the constant conservative BS Perth throws up is why i just gave up and left. I opened this thread hoping something had changed. Dead wrong.

Here's the solution: Give up and leave. There are cities out there which embrace development.

Perth is a place to grow up and raise kids, thats why Labors vision would and never will succeed. People and creative minds get so frustrated they just leave. I can understand the mentality, alot of people in Perth don't want it on the map they want to keep it a secret. Some do, but they are overridden by the conservatives. Thats why labors push to change things led to them loosing the election despite the libs being shambolic.

Perth, The Florida of Australia.

Thats why labors push to change things led to them loosing the election despite the libs being shambolic.
But did they really "push to change things" as strongly as you suggest? I don't feel that they did, or that projects such as the Waterfront and urban planning issues in general were major factors in the election outcome.

Let's not forget that Labor's performance at the election (and the few months leading up to it) was pretty poor, making them look almost as "shambolic" as the Libs. Also, the ultimate deciding factor was the Nationals.

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/6723/gffge.jpg


If the inlet turns out pretty as a picture, he will have my vote.:)

I would be very happy with that. Even if it was mainly low rise.

Does anyone know how high a vehicle bridge will need to be to allow the yachts drawn in the sketches to get into the inlet?

I dont think the bridge needs to be high enough for yachts. I think the negative impacts of having a bridge that high will outweigh the benefits. I think it should be high enough to allow for transport boats and some other lower ones.

I am not sure how high they need to be IF yachts were allowed into the inlet, but these are the clearances of some Perth bridges.



Bridge clearances heights
Clearances are in metres above the highest astronomical tide (HAT).
Narrows.............................................8.0m
Causeways
Perth.......................................3.2m
Vic Park...................................2.8m
Windan Road ...................................3.9m
Garrat Road.......................................2.8m
Redcliffe............................................7.8m
Guildford Road.............................3.7m
Rail................................6.0m
Pipe...............................4.8m
Barkers..............................................4.1m
Middle Swan.....................................4.5m

how about a drawbridge?

That infers that WA/Perth is ready for something that doesn't put cars and trucks before all else.

I wonder what the odds are that there will be some buildings between Mounts Bay Road and the inlet that will block the view of the buildings on the north side of Mounts Bay Road?

how about a drawbridge?

it'll take 30mins for tha bridge to go up and down.

this possibly tha best idea to deter people from using riverside drive...

l:)

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/6723/gffge.jpg


If the inlet turns out pretty as a picture, he will have my vote.:)

sorry but i really don't see any benefit in that plan that wasnt better achieved by the previous plan.

Less development space. More difficult pedestrian access. Greater cost in inlet and bridge construction.

^^ agree.

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/6723/gffge.jpg


If the inlet turns out pretty as a picture, he will have my vote.:)

i'm not a fan of tha freakin inlet at all... i just can't understand tha need to create a divide in terms of access and flow by foot or vehicle by adding that freaking inlet. and then to add to that, barnett wants a freakin bridge!

to me tha inlet concept is this >

let's create an issue/problem (divide to tha area) and solve it by building a bridge!

fail.

One of the reasons for the suggestion that it will go all the way to Mounts Bay Road has to be the appeasement of the lobbyists based on the north side of Mounts Bay Road - so they can keep/improve their view.

But what happens to them when global warming comes around...

yeah I agree, I hope the stupid libs stop all planning and construction until labor gets in power and build all the nice thing we want. stupid barney I hate him. Stupid plans!!!
i'm moving to Melbourne. I hate the PCEC. Did I mention barney is clueless.

Labor never did a thing for this city. Barney is so clever and cool and understands politics better than everyone, I love him. Perth is perfect and has every opportunity in the world. PCEC is great because everyone else hates it. Did I mention Labor wasted our boom.

;)

Will there ever be a thread where Samboy doesn't come in and talk about everyones naive, unrealistic expectations? :P

Yeah, where everyone agrees with samboy ;)

The smartest thing you've said in a long time. Nice to see you're coming around Ryan.

:nuts::nuts: We love samboy! We love samboy!:nuts::nuts:


:lol:

hahaha don't worry Ryan, 90% of people I interact with don't agree with me (or find me to be an arrogant bastard). I'm more than happy to be in the 10% minority :)

Samboy - are you Jeff Kennett or Paul Keating? :poke:

sorry but i really don't see any benefit in that plan that wasnt better achieved by the previous plan.

Less development space. More difficult pedestrian access. Greater cost in inlet and bridge construction.

Yeah..I was just trying to illustrate if Barney insists on his inlet, I'm hoping it won't just be a basic cut or design into the existing foreshore like the mock done by The Worse. That will hurt.

http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6660603,00.jpg V http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/6723/gffge.jpg

hahaha don't worry Ryan, 90% of people I interact with don't agree with me (or find me to be an arrogant bastard). I'm more than happy to be in the 10% minority :)

Just taking the piss.

I'm the same. Stubborn prick or arrogant cunt are two terms that have been thrown around wih me quite a bit.

But what I think/do is working for me so what do I care ;)

Why can't they just pull up the turf and build on the Esplanade??? What is the travesty with that? Just build something... anything on that bloody grass!! And make it a minimum of 80m up to 150m.

See job done. Didin't cost the state government a cent in planning. I rock.

Just taking the piss.

I'm the same. Stubborn prick or arrogant cunt are two terms that have been thrown around wih me quite a bit.

But what I think/do is working for me so what do I care ;)


What about fat cunt?

Plans are like this and the constant conservative BS Perth throws up is why i just gave up and left. I opened this thread hoping something had changed. Dead wrong.

Here's the solution: Give up and leave. There are cities out there which embrace development.


haha yeah, give up, leave, and then post in the Perth forum from afar.

..so, that new life keepin ya busy, pal?

haha ok think i came across a bit to aggressively there with anti-perth sentiments.

I still want to see Perth tap into the massive potential it has. It has the opputunity to be the worlds most liveable city by a long shot. What it needs is the leadership to do so though.

When i saw the new designs for the inlet and just died on the inside. Though upon reading more in depth it doesnt appear this is final so i have hope again.

we really need to convince him to go back to the labor plan it was perfect!!!!!!! this is horrible why is he being such a prick! give us the outrageous plan that we already had! stop wasting time! we need the extreme. and a nice little chair lift to kings park. would love to have that. :)

its easy, get the old labor plan, but dont do a really nice render of it like the one we got, make it look bald and uncolorful, yet the same, so people wont think its to good or something.

hahah yes goran. :) people just got shitty because of the swan island. why do we need a stupid swan island blah blah blah i was so sick of hearing that. like thats the whole plan. even if they kept everything bar the swan island i'd be happy at this point. though i really did like that swan island.

You havent been aggressive there frozenzeus, fucking spot on, a bit of aggressive motivation might be the key to get more developments into action.

Looking at Labours last plan and slighty modifying it is the best idea. Not to dig out the grass bit, and fuck up riverside drive, and fuck up the flow of traffic around the city.

A good idea for that patch of grass area would be doing some sort of development like docklands in Melbourne, or like Battery Park City in NYC. Lets see how Liberal guys handle this one.

yeh i think we all have to wait and see what they propose exactly.

Given the lord mayor of perth is pro-development and has the right idea about moving perth forward we can hope if its a stupid plan she will backlash against it. Thank god natrass is gone.

If its a similar size inlet to the labor plan just with buildings of say 5-6 stories high that is not a bad outcome in my opinion. Once the development is done the heights can slowly be increased with time and the prescient will grow. Any form of development is better than what we have at the moment. So maybe we have to view this as a long term project.

I think the bell tower for example is great. Sure it could of been bigger and better but the point is was a project which actually attempted to activate the foreshore. Its better than having nothing and constant bickering. We need to all be positive over any type of development even if we consider it inadequate.

I wouldn't necessarily say the LandCorp plan was perfect as some of you say - but there was a lot I liked about it. A bit of tweaking might have made it better. But I could see the thinking that went into it. Anyway, it is gone - so we have to wait for the next lot of plans and see how they look.

Samboy - are you Jeff Kennett or Paul Keating? :poke:

I wouldn't mind their bank balance. 2 people I quite admired for different reasons. I've always said perth needs someone like Jeff for 2 terms (heck I take one) to turn things around.

I wouldn't necessarily say the LandCorp plan was perfect as some of you say - but there was a lot I liked about it. A bit of tweaking might have made it better. But I could see the thinking that went into it. Anyway, it is gone - so we have to wait for the next lot of plans and see how they look.
Same here. My initial reaction was to dislike it, but the more I looked into the details, the more I appreciated it. It was very well thought-out, and I'd much rather have seen it retained as a basis for the new government's plans than scrapped altogether.

Still, no point in crying over spilt milk. As someone here pointed out, the fact that the current government are doing this quite early in their political term rather than later is a reason to be more optimistic that something will actually happen in the near future. (Hopefully I'm not kidding myself by saying that...)

I think it's important to get this plan right in the initial stages, once it is built that's it for the next 20 years. So Id rather they leave it alone until they have someone with the vision and guts to put in a world class professional development.
Labor's plan was brilliant (minus the gimmicky swan island), but they wasted the boom years with indecision and just left us with the Mandurah Rail line and Perth Arena. They had the ideas but no political guts (except for Alannah :) ).

As Barnett has released this rushed concept without any detail, well he should expect scrutiny and any critcism from this rushed release. The logic of excavating prime real estate (and the cost of this) to create an area of more water (dont we already have enough river for this?) totally escapes me.
As for placing tall buildings on the river...whats the shadow going to be over?? river??? all the thousands of boats that just sit in the exact position that the tall building is situated at? Or perhaps a shadow over riverside drive and the pedestrians crossing roads.
These are weak excuses and should be dismissed. Any one that doesnt like it should just move somewhere else..like to a country town or somewhere I cant really say in this forum...sorry it just annoys me to think that our city is being held back by PATHETIC old morons who object to any development.

Second best or second rate is not good enough, and im sure in the future any additions will enhance whatever they put there, but in our lifetime I want to see it done properly right from the beginning.

Three words I can say that will be a likely cause for the start date to be longer than 18 months:

acid sulphate soils

I wouldn't mind their bank balance. 2 people I quite admired for different reasons. I've always said perth needs someone like Jeff for 2 terms (heck I take one) to turn things around.

jeff did good things for victoria... his leadership or 'dictatorship' on what goes now means victorians have some quality developments that have change tha cityscape forever...

this is what i want from a leader, we used to have leaders that had vision but it all seems to non-existent in today's political climate...

i have a mate that has aspirations on being a politician and it breaks me to see him change his 'idealism' so it appeals to tha seat he wants to run for... disturbing. wrong.

spit

Where are all these crazies coming from?

Mossimoh? Jesus fuck, worst user name ever.

Anway, let me get this straight - you want shadows over the pedestrian areas in this new precinct, and if I don't like it, I'm pathetic and I should leave Perth?

Perhaps it is a name of a person? ^^

I agree lately there have been numerous people joining SSC and venting their concerns etc. Some of these comments have absolety nothing to do with the actual updates of the bldgs or developments and provide more of a general discusssion which can be good but can be annoying to read through. In many cases it is hard to hold back and i am like many regular uses who only want to add to the discussion making it go even more off track. But frankly that's why I've always thought we have mods. As mods can move posts etc or delete them etc...

Maybe these "crazies" are people who came across looking for somewhere to vent their issues, but are doing so from a response to SSC being advertised somewhere or upon finding out more information on the respected bldgs wondering if a Kmart :lol: is being opened up in a particular bldg...
Okay, SSC probably is the only place where buildings/ infrastructure projects are discussed in great detail and argued on, but I think this is not a place where outcomes affect a development. SSC users cannot do anything about what happens to a bldg. It is good that people can discuss and thrash out arguments about ideas, but we certainly shouldn't be going down the track to thrashing out someone's user name... for all u know this "Mossimoh" is an actual person name, or nick name to a particular country... perhaps "smithy" is just as bad tasting to some..

While I would not want to provide part of my real name on here, i don't have a nickname that already has been taken, so I chose Skyline Art as I think it is appropriate and has somesort of meaning for SSC.

As for loving or loathing Perth, those who love it can continue to do so, those who loathe it should either leave or put up with it and hope that it will eventually change in their favour... I guess another way would be to simply run for local government and get your self well known among the community and then try lobbying a local government councillor or MP and gain people support by means of a local group to make changes. If it doesn't work then at least u had a try.

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/6723/gffge.jpg

It occurs to me that the space where the inlet is going (in this image) was going to be a large public square any way, and that massive public square was one of the more irksome elements of Labors plan. We have a bunch of underutilised public squares in the city already, forrest place, the NB Link, cultural centre, and it's right next door to langley park & supreme court gardens.

So I'm much less bothered with a big inlet when I realise that, but the Riverside Drive problem still bothers me a lot. I'd really hate for the city to have an elevated bridge running parallel to the river. I really think it would create more problems than it would solve.

Three words I can say that will be a likely cause for the start date to be longer than 18 months:

acid sulphate soils

Or it could be:

The Unions

Or it could be:

The Unions

That is more after the works start. I am referring to the starting point. Environmental approvals, if there is acid sulphate soils (a good chance), will be pretty strict otherwise they could cause BIG problems to existing infrastructure and the environment (including the river).

haha yeah, give up, leave, and then post in the Perth forum from afar.

Sounds familiar... At least a lot come back in their 30s, better equipped to help this city move forward (or with the intention of doing so at least).

Originally Posted by mossimoh
spit

Where are all these crazies coming from?

Mossimoh? Jesus fuck, worst user name ever.

Anway, let me get this straight - you want shadows over the pedestrian areas in this new precinct, and if I don't like it, I'm pathetic and I should leave Perth? "

Thanks Nate, I have just as much right to express my views in this forum as others do. It is here to discuss what's happening in our city and I have a strong interest in the urban form and design future of Perth.

If you are one of the pedestrians who might want to stand in the shadow of a tall building at the particular time it happens to cast a shadow and then complains about it in regards to preventing tall buildings being placed on the river, then that is your choice. My choice of 'pathetic' was more me feeling frustrated at good ideas being knocked back because of this overshadowing issue.As long as people look for trivial excuses to hold up development we are not going to get the right type of development Perth deserves. This is a CBD area, it is supposed to have tall buildings.

As for 'crazies' well if you see my passion for Perth as being crazy so be it, that's your opinion.
One more point Nate, try not to denigrate someone's name/ user name. It's childish/ bullying behaviour and if you want to be taken seriously dont start trying to ridicule or discredit members because you dont like what they say or dont like their name/ user name. I thought this was a public forum, not some private blogging site.

That being said I liked the pictures you posted showing the types of bridges that could be used in the Barnett inlet (if it did go ahead).

What is the extent of acid sulphate soils in the city area? Because if that is indeed the case, then 18 months is definitely too short a timeframe to get work started (which is good news). By then it will be end 2011, and we'll be due for another election

Horse


Dead


Flogging

What is the extent of acid sulphate soils in the city area? Because if that is indeed the case, then 18 months is definitely too short a timeframe to get work started (which is good news). By then it will be end 2011, and we'll be due for another election

I haven't found the map yet, but there is a chance of it. I assume they will have to take samples to check for it.

http://www.dec.wa.gov.au/management-and-protection/acid-sulfate-soils/acid-sulfate-soils-in-western-australia.html

Significant remediation will have to occur before anything can start. Perhaps this is what Barnett is talking about when he means starting in 18 months. If that's the case then civil works wont begin atleast mid 2011.

Then theres the case of moving the main drain, should they chose to create an inlet. That will take time and add to the cost of the plan significantly.

Originally Posted by mossimoh


Anyway, let me get this straight - you want shadows over the pedestrian areas in this new precinct, and if I don't like it, I'm pathetic and I should leave Perth? "

Thanks Nate, I have just as much right to express my views in this forum as others do. It is here to discuss what's happening in our city and I have a strong interest in the urban form and design future of Perth.

If you are one of the pedestrians who might want to stand in the shadow of a tall building at the particular time it happens to cast a shadow and then complains about it in regards to preventing tall buildings being placed on the river, then that is your choice.

I would like to know how the shadow of a tall building will really really affect a pedestrian if it's very close to the water's edge? I thought it would cast it's shadow on the river, in main. The so called "controversial" and inaptly branded 'dildo' building in the Landcorp building was envisaged to be pretty well right on the waters edge. I suspect, in reality there would have been pedestrian access right around it but for all intensive purposes, it's shadowing effect on the precinct in general would have been minimal.

See, when the emotions are taken away and the reality is setting in the inevitable NIMBYism is proven once again just to be an irrational stance against something 'tall'.

If something 'tall' is in the right place, has the right architectural flare (and no, not of the kitsch style so quickly pointed out by the 'unnamed' artist who seems to make conclusions based on a concept, with no actual design at the table), and that something 'tall' has multiple and grand purposes, I cannot see one reason why it is a negative.

This idea of the so called 'dildo' building was to:

1. Provide a base for a large tenancy - therefore some sustained human vitality to the area.
2. Possible mixed use - Probably retail, some commerce on lower levels.
3. Huge tourism attraction - God forbid we attract the external tourist to Perth, however the visionary idea of the top part "skygarden" was just brilliant. It would have been simply spectacular and totally world class. Picture the view from approximately 270m's above the river with unimaginable vista's to the city that is north, Kings Park to the west, and the majestic Swan below you.

But hey it was but a dream that had little chance to gain root because so called height phobia's and dildo kitsch stylistic assumptions killed it before reason could properly examine it.

Sorry, that's how I see it. :( I am sad..... :)

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but would there not also have been a pronounced and pretty much permanent shadowing of the pedestrian area around the inlet? Not that I think it's a deal-breaker or any kind of problem, but that might be what Nate was referring to.

Also, homer, it's 'For all intents and purposes', not 'for all intensive purposes'.

It was mentioned that at any stage of the day (in the LandCorp version) that during the day there would be somewhere along the inlet where people could be in sunlight if they wished to be.

i like the idea of re-directing the traffic around the inlet now! and i have a new plan in my mind which i might try and draw up when i get home from work tonight. it is similar to most of my previous ones but i have some new ideas to add in.

I intensively (lol with the English correction, but anyway) did not make mention of the 'other' tall buildings depicted in the Landcorp promotional renders. Why? Because they were less referred to in the wording of the Landcorp release and the real visionary part of the high-rise proposal was the skygarden 'tall' right on the river, almost to the point that it was to be a mandatory feature of the proposal. There was mention in the plan to this building as a distinct cog in the wheel to the entire concept. The mention of the skygarden and viewing deck.

The rest of the 'talls' in the render were purely there as an "impression". Personally, I agree that their inclusion had to be closely examined because it is a fair point to say that there should not be excessive shadowing over the entire precinct.

nb: I apologise in forward for any grammar or misuse of similar words. My English is not without it's flaws. Not that I take time to proof read extensively when posting on a casual forum.

well you should of proof read it

Thanks Sanj - I'll takes that onboards.

chears

for all intensive purposes this thred just got about %500 more smarter

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

sineing off,

despert robot

This thread is far too intense for me. Extreme!

This thread is far too intense for me. Extreme!

I think its awsome

Interesting to see that these guys came to much the same conclusion as I did back in page 38 of the old thread (Elevating riverside drive).

http://www.dna-architects.com.au/civ..._Forehore.html

My plan was here:
http://www.mikelepage.com/ML_Perth_Waterfront.pps

Copied from what I wrote on the comments there:

The way I came to the conclusion that Riverside drive needs to be elevated (for whole or part of it's length - my plan only starts at Victoria Ave) is as follows.
1) We cannot remove, redirect, or otherwise marginalise it: The city needs to have a southern bypass that will also provide redundancy in case of problems with the Northbridge Tunnel.
2) The cost of submerging Riverside Drive has already been established as too expensive due to the porous rock and reclaimed land it sits on. Also, as there is no private enterprise to be gained in a tunnel, this would have to be entirely taxpayer-funded.
3)All cities/towns with thriving waterfront pedestrian districts are laid out such that there is at least a city-block width from the water to the nearest road that pedestrians have to cross to get there. The Barrack St Jetty somewhat conforms to this rule but lacks critical mass. There must also be sufficient room for commercial development in any plan and both of ours have that.

Elevating Riverside Drive above a Pedestrian Waterfront district will be a prominent landmark, though if not done artfully it has the potential to become a serious eye-sore. It is however the only option which will allow a pedestrian district on the water; pedestrian access is not good enough - we already have that.

In any case, it's going to take someone with considerable oratic skills (and crisp visuals) to get anything remotely progressive built.

if you told me that dna concept was for something that weaved thru tha cbd i would have said hot... but if you had massive structure on tha foreshore... no.

i saw tha solution to riverside drive and thought to myself. "that's one way to destroy our view to tha foreshore"...

^ my thoughts exactly.

A FP members worked for that firm. I'll get some more info next time i speak to him.

ok, my new idea... yes i realise it is really long.

key points.


Mounts Bay Road has been extended from William St through to Terrace Road, on an alingment south of the Supreme Court
The Esplanade *Street* has been down graded to a laneway similar to King St and can only be access from the south direction on william st and north direction on barrack st although it is two way (i forgot to draw it)
Riverside Dr has been removed
Terrace Road continues onto the causeway interchange
Mounts Bay Road from the swan brewery through to william st will be two lanes in each direction with footpaths on either side wide enough to put in 1/2 st buildings for alfresco dining and other retail uses
Mounts Bay Road between Wiliam St and Terrace Road will have one lane of traffic in each direction and street side parking
Terrace road from Mounts Bay Road through to the causeway will have one lane in each direction and will also have street side parking
The convention centre would become surrounded by development to make it more street front orientated and become more friendly to pedestrians and shoppers ( with heights varying from 5 storey podiums upto 30st
at the middle of the inlet a new ferry terminal will be built to connect to the train station and busport, of which will all have development above of upto 40st
supreme court gardens and the parks near the freeway interchange will become sculpted gardens with lakes, fountains etc.
the development area between the Esplanade Lane and Mounts Bay road will have only the 300m RL height limit enforced
the new aboriginal building wil be built at the end of wiliam st and the Perth Arts Precienct will be built behind the Concert Hall
development along the south side of Terrace Road between Victoria Ave and Plain St will be allowed to any height but must have a podium and street frontage
development along the north side of Terrace Road between Plain St and the causeway will have the same rules as above.
but development along the prongs of Victoria Ave and Plain st along the sides of the esplanade will not be allowed to exceed 3 storeys
there will be a public pool and beach at the end of victoria ave
Langley park will continue to be grass for the red bull air race or cirque de soliel or other events
a swampy natural environment will be reinstated on the south side of Terrace road between Plain St and the causeway, but will also contain community sporting fields
there ofcourse would be boardwalks the entire length of the foreshore with kiosks, cafes, fish and chip shops, pubs, restaurants, nightclubs, bars, shops etc
the bell tower will become a prominent feature of the foreshore



http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/8483/maphti.jpg

so what do we think? it forces traffic elsewhere, it makes all streets pedestrian friendly with shop frontages, has a high mass of people for both living and work as well as relaxation, contains potential landmarks, retains the natural landscape while having artificial landscape aswell as a urban grit, it hides and intergrates the convention centre, makes a second transport hub, etc etc

The road re alignments are good and practical..this could work!

Lots of people always complain about how the Perth Convention Centre is facing the wrong way. Now obviously we can't change its orientation now, but how about improve on its accessibility on the Mounts Bay Road side?

Currently, the buildings around Mounts Bay Road (Busport section) have a lobby that is at least a floor above road level. Ernst & Young building, Esplanade Busport, PCEC, Westralia Square, Quadrant, and also the future City Square and Alluvion.

So why not build a large pedestrian square connecting the Busport side and the Westralia Square side (currently there are 3 pedestrian bridges - 1 not in use due to construction of Alluvion). This effectively makes a tunnel out of Mounts Bay Rd.

Now what does this do?

Improves accessibility between offices and the busport
Creates an open space away from traffic (that is ironically underneath)
Hides traffic away


A possible future I would like to see is construction of a shopping building/office tower on top of Esplanade, connect the busport to the new mall via bridge (or whatever) and then remove the current escalator route. Then open up that section to become the busport entrance. Now this would have a smaller impact than we think because now all pedestrian traffic will be directed to the above pedestrian square, so that intersection can now be dedicated to traffic - think of it as service roads.

What does this mean to the future waterfront? With the Mounts Bay Rd/William St junction "degenerated" to a pedestrain-unfriendly area, what do we do?

Nothing. That's right.

The next phase would involve construction of more buildings along William St (south of Mounts Bay Rd) so that, now, all road traffic is situated in the "basement", and all pedestrian traffic is situated above the roads on bridges and plazas that "cover over" Mounts Bay Rd.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v181/sandstorm6299/pedes.jpg

Apologies for the poor work of "art"

Wow i leave Perth for 3 weeks and it all starts to happen... Has the govt released any plans yet or just talking about releasing plans?

All talk and wait a while. A bit like the Elenbrook Rail Study

wow docker the removal of riverside drive in there looks much better.... ^^
The road around the bell tower I don't think would be necessary? a good path around it for pedestrians.... the removal of the current ferry terminal would be the go if there are plans for another nearer to the bus/train station.... or the current ferry terminal area could be used...?
:2cents:

^^ road around bell tower would be necessary to provide access for trucks, rubbish vehicles, etc. for businesses, etc. But paving it and making low speed would not make it a typical road (as it is now).

so what do we think? it forces traffic elsewhere, it makes all streets pedestrian friendly with shop frontages, has a high mass of people for both living and work as well as relaxation, contains potential landmarks, retains the natural landscape while having artificial landscape aswell as a urban grit, it hides and intergrates the convention centre, makes a second transport hub, etc etc

Emphasis mine.

I love your plan in itself. What bothers me is the complete lack of inbuilt redundancy. I shudder to think what would happen to traffic should there be a fire or bomb in the Northbridge Tunnel.

I said it before and I'll say it again
"1) We cannot remove, redirect, or otherwise marginalise it (Riverside dr): The city needs to have a southern bypass that will also provide redundancy in case of problems with the Northbridge Tunnel. "

riverside drive is still gonna be there no matter what. Should something go wrong with the tunnel, traffic will be diverted along 4 major arterials- newcastle, wellington, st georges and riverside drive.

You're making it sound as if we've only got 2 east-west routes....

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/12/48419025.jpg
Both pedestrian and traffic bridge. Light/Laser show off bridge nightly at 15 minute intervals :p

hiss.

tha on-ramp needed for a bridge would be disastrous for tha waterfront precinct...

Truly. It would be as much of a visual problem as tunnelling would ever be. I think they'll divert around it.

Tell it Barney and co. Will be interesting to see how and what they come up with...Save the hiss's til then:)

i don't think tha bridge, regardless of it being a 'architectural' god-send, is what is needed to become a focal point... tha indigenous arts centre and water front should be tha focus here... not a bridge!

and also another thing about that inlet... people have suggested that ferries can now dock closer to tha city... which is all fine and well... but how exactly will that add to tha desired activity it needs flowing thru tha whole area... to me it makes sense to have people getting off at tha barracks street jetty and walking thru waterfront precinct then into tha cbd... but if you ferries docking up on tha esplanade, tha foot traffic is effectively reduced within tha waterfront precinct.

Agree crave. You want people moving through the precinct from one point to another. But the amount of foot traffic between the esplanade and the ferry to no where will probably remain negligible for a while yet.

I'm just as frustrated as everyone else...If he insists on a frigin bridge, it has to be iconic and blend well into the cityscape like the pic above...Oh what could have been..shut up samboy...I feel postnatal depression coming on..

A bridge, parallel to the river, infront of the city, seems so insanely stupid to me. Like putting a huge couch in a small lounge room.

Barney being elected was as stupid as stupid can get..this is just the on flow.

lol We are doing the opposite.

http://www.bricoleurbanism.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/1A_Parliament_St_and_Waterfront_Blvd-e.jpg

riverside drive is still gonna be there no matter what. Should something go wrong with the tunnel, traffic will be diverted along 4 major arterials- newcastle, wellington, st georges and riverside drive.

You're making it sound as if we've only got 2 east-west routes....

I meant in terms of bypass routes:
A quick count of traffic lights East to West from the fwy to Windan Bridge/ Causeway on each of those routes.

Northbridge Tunnel: 0
Riverside Drive: 5
Newcastle St*: 8-9 depending which way you go.
Wellington St: 16
St Georges Tce: 16

My point was that you take out Riverside Drive, and then something happens to the Tunnel, it's really bad. I don't think it's far-fetched to assume hours of gridlock. If anything it would be prudent to increase the capacity of RSD.

*remembering that Newcastle is only 1 lane in each direction

One thing I liked about dockers plan was that it took a holistic approach to the entire river front. I think that would be the best way to proceed for the city, but it's such a huge area I imagine the too-hard-basket will always be puckering its fat lips for any attempt at such a huge plan.

The way I see it, the city has four main nodes of river-activity in the pipeline.

1 - The Esplanade Foreshore
2 - The East Perth Riverside development - Burswood river frontage
3 - Herrison Island Scultpture Park
4 - South Perth Foreshore

They're so geographically distant (well, not within comfortable/convenient walking distance, at least) that I think the smartest way to bring them together would be to use the river, not just in terms of transport, but using sculpture and light.

The idea to turn Herrison Island into the eastern book-end for the city is great. I don't know if a landscaped sculpture park will do it. If we consider Kings Park, the #1 attraction is the view. It's amazing. Pretty much the cities best tourist asset. Herrisson Island, I think, would need something equally as bold to attract numbers, both local and tourist. So I would love to see a permanent light sculpture tower for the city built on the southern end of the island. It would contain an observation deck & restaurant/bar, and project lights down into the Sculpture park at night. (Think a pared down 'dildo' building, but not offices, more sculptural, with the skygarden etc intact.)

Link Herrison to the esplanade, south perth, burswood and riverside by a water taxi service, like a CAT bus on the water. Pedestrian links where appropriate. Make it a real hub.

Have the WaterCAT follow routes that pass by sculpture in the river, floating structures or something more permanent, which illuminate at night.

Have Burswood make some engagement with their river frontage. Restaurants, bars, galleries, shops in the Riverside development.

More development of the South Perth foreshore -- better bbq facilities, free public gym equipment, art art art, boats, restaurants on the river, etc etc.

...Sorry this turned into a crazy rant. :P

Here is my 2c (since we are all chipping in) :

The inlet idea is not good. It will break up the whole area from the pedestrian flow it really needs to be successful. It will make it a couple of mini-precincts (east and west).

Now... *if* there is an inlet, would there be a problem with a bridge, for pedestrians only? The scale of a pedestrian bridge would not be so big that it would destroy views, ruin hairstyles, spoil makeup, or cause town planners to spontaneously combust.

Major roads shouldn't be visible in the precinct. If this was Sim City, I would tunnel riverside drive. It would make it a really cool road - freeway, then tunnel, then city/river views with palm trees. Nice.

My point was that you take out Riverside Drive, and then something happens to the Tunnel, it's really bad.

If by really bad, you mean that it will take a few extra minutes to cross the city, then yes, I agree.

Personally, I think planning the waterfront around tunnel redundancy / traffic load balancing is not the most visionary idea.

Here is my 2c (since we are all chipping in) :

The inlet idea is not good. It will break up the whole area from the pedestrian flow it really needs to be successful. It will make it a couple of mini-precincts (east and west).

Now... *if* there is an inlet, would there be a problem with a bridge, for pedestrians only? The scale of a pedestrian bridge would not be so big that it would destroy views, ruin hairstyles, spoil makeup, or cause town planners to spontaneously combust.

Major roads shouldn't be visible in the precinct. If this was Sim City, I would tunnel riverside drive. It would make it a really cool road - freeway, then tunnel, then city/river views with palm trees. Nice.

I agree with all of this, especially the simcity bit. I would probably put a zoo there for $3000 sim dollars too, just because they look nice.

I was never keen on the curly bridge from Labors plan. That it curled to allow for boat access was fine, but visually I think it would have really sucked to have the entire length of the view to the south obscured. Having said that, South Perth would lay beyond that bridge, and it is not a pretty picture, so I'm not sure I'd mind looking at a curly bridge when South Perth commie blocks are the alternative.

...

Put a few pedestrian bridges across the inlet that are at grade (is that the right phrase? you know, that they dont go up or down - they're flat) and that would be awesome.

I would probably put a zoo there for $3000 sim dollars too, just because they look nice.

OK, DR so which one of us is going to mock this up in Sim City?

Just posing a question and showing my ignorance- whats the diff between the inlet and the circle?

The inlet pushes up to the existing built form. The circle would be (mostly) created by pushing land out into the river, leaving the (valuable, valuable) existing land above water.

OK, DR so which one of us is going to mock this up in Sim City?

I don't have it on my mac :P

The inlet pushes up to the existing built form. The circle would be (mostly) created by pushing land out into the river, leaving the (valuable, valuable) existing land above water.



Well wouldnt the inlet at least allow like ferries to dock up closer to the city and then couldnt development just be organised around it like the circle would??? The circle would have been to shallow to allow this wouldnt it???

You don't want ferries pulling up close to the city -- you want the pedestrian traffic to flow through the precinct. (The pedestrian traffic from the ferries would probably be somewhat marginal at best, but still.)

I don't believe the circle was going to be all that much shallower than the river; it had to allow some boats in in any case.

I don't have it on my mac :P

Ironically, this is more detailed than the plan we are all arguing about:

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h41/pstyle/Perthcopy-2.jpg

You don't want ferries pulling up close to the city -- you want the pedestrian traffic to flow through the precinct. (The pedestrian traffic from the ferries would probably be somewhat marginal at best, but still.)

I don't believe the circle was going to be all that much shallower than the river; it had to allow some boats in in any case.



Ok cool fair enough. But Im thinking ferries pull right at the cities edge at circular key and thatwhole area is still activated- Im wondering if the inlet and the circle are almost realy the same thing just different shape?????

Of course the issue of riverside dr going around, under or over is another issue

lol.

But, see, in Sydney, people use ferries to get home. They travel all over the river.

In perth they go to the zoo and back.

I lived in South Perth for about 8 months and I used the ferry about 5 times.

But, see, in Sydney, people use ferries to get home. They travel all over the river.

In perth they go to the zoo and back.

I lived in South Perth for about 8 months and I used the ferry about 5 times.



Yes I totaly agree with you

um...but...
then... if no one is realy using it.... would it realy decrease activation of people moving from the 'now ferri terminal' as opposed to like about 2 feet closer in-

yet the movement of ferries in and out of a circle or inlet would at east give the visual activation for people say siting on cafes at the circle or inlet mouth or people moving to galleries theatres or museums what ever- wouldnt it add activation as opposed to a still quiet pond????

dunno just thoughts thats all

great more water down plans for the waterfront...well done

Yes I totaly agree with you

um...but...
then... if no one is realy using it.... would it realy decrease activation of people moving from the 'now ferri terminal' as opposed to like about 2 feet closer in-

yet the movement of ferries in and out of a circle or inlet would at east give the visual activation for people say siting on cafes at the circle or inlet mouth or people moving to galleries theatres or museums what ever- wouldnt it add activation as opposed to a still quiet pond????

dunno just thoughts thats all

No, the difference in pedestrian traffic AT THE MOMENT would probably not be too great. So, what's the point moving the existing infrastructure? To make a trip a few minutes more convenient? To give people something to look at? The same loud, awful ferry day in, day out? We only have two of them, remember. :P

Making ferries cross the inlet every 15 minutes, you'd wind up destroying any chance of 'stuff' happening on the inlet water. Light shows. Floating stages. Fountains and stuff. Civilian boats and junk. You know, whatever it is they expect to put on it (i have no idea).

It makes sense to keep the ferries on the edge, if only for the hope of increased ferry use in the future.

Yes I totaly agree with you

um...but...
then... if no one is realy using it.... would it realy decrease activation of people moving from the 'now ferri terminal' as opposed to like about 2 feet closer in-

yet the movement of ferries in and out of a circle or inlet would at east give the visual activation for people say siting on cafes at the circle or inlet mouth or people moving to galleries theatres or museums what ever- wouldnt it add activation as opposed to a still quiet pond????

dunno just thoughts thats all

Is that just because of the speed limits here - or are they similar in Sydney? I assume that more traffic to avoid and the higher population would be factors.

great more water down plans for the waterfront...well done

No plans yet, but a decent chance it will be a watered down plan. We will be waiting for them - I expect close to the end of year.

Ironically, this is more detailed than the plan we are all arguing about:

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h41/pstyle/Perthcopy-2.jpg

Also, lol.

hmmmn


anyway its going to be interesting cning wot they put there, I unfortunately have no high expectations

Mounts Bay Road has been extended from William St through to Terrace Road, on an alingment south of the Supreme Court
I've always liked the idea of such an alignment, but have a few concerns about it, particularly the fact that it would cut the Supreme Court off from its Gardens. But maybe that's not such a bad compromise to make, especially if the Gardens are expanded/enhanced as you propose (as did the 2008 plan).

Ironically, this is more detailed than the plan we are all arguing about:

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h41/pstyle/Perthcopy-2.jpg

No Taj Mahal to use as Charles Court's tomb? I am sure Barnett would find the $ to build that, since there is still talk about a monument for him.

Ironically, this is more detailed than the plan we are all arguing about:

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h41/pstyle/Perthcopy-2.jpg

Awesome! Not too sure about the MetLife Building and the Pyramid though.

Let's not start debating the relative merits of a simcity3000 mockup of the foreshore, pleeeeease.

At least it is world class and iconic.

Let's not start debating the relative merits of a simcity3000 mockup of the foreshore, pleeeeease.

Translation: "Where is the Louvre on the foreshore? pleeeeease."

What we need is a frikken Packer casino that makes the one in Melbourne look like some illegal gaming house from the movie Porky's. Sydney and Melbourne both have casino's on their so called waterfronts.

This will attract big money into the area :). Jk.

At least it is world class and iconic.

Yes!

(I may have reached the pinnacle of my ironic-ness with this picture, its all downhill from here)

I think we should have a casino in the city. Sure, it might raise crime in the area, but just put three police stations near by and it will be fine.

/simcity planning principles

Lots of people always complain about how the Perth Convention Centre is facing the wrong way. Now obviously we can't change its orientation now, but how about improve on its accessibility on the Mounts Bay Road side?

Currently, the buildings around Mounts Bay Road (Busport section) have a lobby that is at least a floor above road level. Ernst & Young building, Esplanade Busport, PCEC, Westralia Square, Quadrant, and also the future City Square and Alluvion.

So why not build a large pedestrian square connecting the Busport side and the Westralia Square side (currently there are 3 pedestrian bridges - 1 not in use due to construction of Alluvion). This effectively makes a tunnel out of Mounts Bay Rd.

Now what does this do?

Improves accessibility between offices and the busport
Creates an open space away from traffic (that is ironically underneath)
Hides traffic away


A possible future I would like to see is construction of a shopping building/office tower on top of Esplanade, connect the busport to the new mall via bridge (or whatever) and then remove the current escalator route. Then open up that section to become the busport entrance. Now this would have a smaller impact than we think because now all pedestrian traffic will be directed to the above pedestrian square, so that intersection can now be dedicated to traffic - think of it as service roads.

What does this mean to the future waterfront? With the Mounts Bay Rd/William St junction "degenerated" to a pedestrain-unfriendly area, what do we do?

Nothing. That's right.

The next phase would involve construction of more buildings along William St (south of Mounts Bay Rd) so that, now, all road traffic is situated in the "basement", and all pedestrian traffic is situated above the roads on bridges and plazas that "cover over" Mounts Bay Rd.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v181/sandstorm6299/pedes.jpg

Apologies for the poor work of "art"

oddly enough i have had that idea and made diagrams etc, but i have given up on that, and instead i am focusing on making Mounts Bay Road more pedestrian friendly instead.

Yes, DR, but a Casino would also:

*Reduce Lisa's rating by 20%
*Provide an additional $100 per month income to the city
*Require that the City passes an ordinance to legalise gambling

Dont' forget that if the PCC ever repeals this ordinance, the Casino would spontaneously demolish itself.

Always thought Langley Park would of been a good spot to have it.



Yet again all those peeps in their 'high-rise' apartments would go crying foul about their views being blocked off or how the area isnt quiet enough anymore.

Yes, DR, but a Casino would also:

*Reduce Lisa's rating by 20%
*Provide an additional $100 per month income to the city
*Require that the City passes an ordinance to legalise gambling

Dont' forget that if the PCC ever repeals this ordinance, the Casino would spontaneously demolish itself.

I play my own version of sim city:

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p262/desperaterobots/blue-large-blog.jpg

berlin-wall-esque...

Ooo. Aaah.

I was thinking Midgar-esque.

Sector 5 looks nice.

i'm not a fan of tha freakin inlet at all... i just can't understand tha need to create a divide in terms of access and flow by foot or vehicle by adding that freaking inlet. and then to add to that, barnett wants a freakin bridge!

to me tha inlet concept is this >

let's create an issue/problem (divide to tha area) and solve it by building a bridge!

fail.

After reading this post, I agree with you completely. What is the point in adding that water when we already have a large waterfront space to work with? Why should development be once again focused not on the river, but on an inlet?

Excellent post PerthCity.

I agree. The inlet really isn't needed IMO.

The Landcorp proposal would have featured an inlet too small for any practical use. The Barnett proposal, if we speculate correctly, would be large enough for ferry access but create a whole bunch of other issues.

I would be happy with Northbridge Link on the Waterfront. Simple design, with well intergrated streets, podiums and a good level of office, retail, residential a civic uses.