Projects & Discussions | Perth Waterfront | Urban Renewal

Scraperfan · June 28th, 2009, 06:51 AM

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

Plan A (Allanah)

Plan B (Barnett)

Old Plans
Some old (2004) brochure...

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

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.

BartBart · June 28th, 2009, 07:57 AM

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.

Scraperfan · June 28th, 2009, 08:19 AM

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).

aaronaugi1 · June 28th, 2009, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scraperfan

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.

crave · June 28th, 2009, 09:26 AM

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

docker · June 28th, 2009, 01:34 PM

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.

***Dilaz89*** · June 28th, 2009, 02:44 PM

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.

BartBart · June 28th, 2009, 03:38 PM

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.

sandstorm6299 · June 28th, 2009, 07:16 PM

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)

crave · June 29th, 2009, 12:48 AM

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

ryan79 · June 29th, 2009, 02:16 AM

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.

BartBart · June 29th, 2009, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryan79

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.

ryan79 · June 29th, 2009, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BartBart

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

They still can.

crave · June 29th, 2009, 04:39 AM

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

ryan79 · June 29th, 2009, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crave

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.

Ipggi · June 29th, 2009, 01:32 PM

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.

Urbania · June 29th, 2009, 02:27 PM

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.

BartBart · June 29th, 2009, 05:07 PM

FP members:
http://www.futureperth.info/joomla/i...pper&Itemid=76

BartBart · June 29th, 2009, 05:13 PM

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.

sandstorm6299 · June 29th, 2009, 06:01 PM

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?

June 28th, 2009, 06:51 AM	#1
Scraperfan Single, looking to mingle Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Partytown Posts: 6,348 Likes (Received): 20	Projects & Discussions \| Perth Waterfront \| Urban Renewal Old Thread: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=708596 Plan A (Allanah) Plan B (Barnett) Old Plans Some old (2004) brochure... -------------------- 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. __________________ Margaret River Accommodation Perth Airport Car Hire WA Holiday Guide __________________________ FuturePerth Last edited by alvse; June 29th, 2009 at 08:26 AM.

June 28th, 2009, 07:57 AM	#2
BartBart In the sweetspot Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 8,601 Likes (Received): 122	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. __________________ He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery. Harold Wilson

June 28th, 2009, 08:19 AM	#3
Scraperfan Single, looking to mingle Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Partytown Posts: 6,348 Likes (Received): 20	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). __________________ Margaret River Accommodation Perth Airport Car Hire WA Holiday Guide __________________________ FuturePerth

June 28th, 2009, 09:26 AM	#5
crave fierce buildings papi. Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: perth - in tha heat... Posts: 8,422 Likes (Received): 56	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 __________________ worst. architecture. ever.

June 28th, 2009, 01:34 PM	#6
docker A 'Refined Bogan' Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Kalamunda, Perth Posts: 5,799 Likes (Received): 43	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. __________________ I AM ME! http://www.perthurbanist.com/ https://www.facebook.com/pages/Perth...80198198693216

June 28th, 2009, 02:44 PM	#7
*Dilaz89* Moderator Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Perth, Dubai, World Posts: 13,926 Likes (Received): 186	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.

June 28th, 2009, 03:38 PM	#8
BartBart In the sweetspot Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 8,601 Likes (Received): 122	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. __________________ He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery. Harold Wilson

June 28th, 2009, 07:16 PM	#9
sandstorm6299 Previously in Singapore Join Date: May 2006 Location: Perth Posts: 1,503 Likes (Received): 3	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)

June 29th, 2009, 12:48 AM	#10
crave fierce buildings papi. Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: perth - in tha heat... Posts: 8,422 Likes (Received): 56	you don't need to sink riverside drive to expand tha city. __________________ worst. architecture. ever.

June 29th, 2009, 02:16 AM	#11
ryan79 Destorying our history Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Perth Posts: 9,844 Likes (Received): 98	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'm free to say what I want

June 29th, 2009, 04:39 AM	#14
crave fierce buildings papi. Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: perth - in tha heat... Posts: 8,422 Likes (Received): 56	how can tourists enjoy tha waterfront in a car if, tha precinct doesn't allow cars thru it? __________________ worst. architecture. ever.

June 29th, 2009, 01:32 PM	#16
Ipggi Here Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Woolloomooloo Hill, Albion Posts: 5,803 Likes (Received): 34	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.

June 29th, 2009, 02:27 PM	#17
Urbania Urban Athiest Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Perth Posts: 1,475 Likes (Received): 145	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.

June 29th, 2009, 05:07 PM	#18
BartBart In the sweetspot Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 8,601 Likes (Received): 122	FP members: http://www.futureperth.info/joomla/i...pper&Itemid=76 __________________ He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery. Harold Wilson

June 29th, 2009, 05:13 PM	#19
BartBart In the sweetspot Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 8,601 Likes (Received): 122	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. __________________ He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery. Harold Wilson

June 29th, 2009, 06:01 PM	#20
sandstorm6299 Previously in Singapore Join Date: May 2006 Location: Perth Posts: 1,503 Likes (Received): 3	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?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode