SkyscraperCity Forum banner

Projects & Discussions | Perth Waterfront | Urban Renewal

2M views 16K replies 356 participants last post by  AestheticsImby 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)
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.
 
See less See more
1 10
#101 ·
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 **** 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 **** 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.
 
#102 ·
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.
 
#103 ·
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
 
#104 ·
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.
 
#105 ·
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.
 
#106 ·
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"
 
#107 ·
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
 
#112 ·
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.
 
#114 ·
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.
 
#115 ·
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
 
#116 · (Edited)
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
 
#117 ·
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:
 
#118 ·
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.
 
#119 ·
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 :eek:kay:
 
Top