Projects & Discussion | Beachfront Developments

[Nate Von Longneck II]

Originally Posted by jonwil

If you have developers comming in and building apartment towers etc (something developers really want to do due to the location, hence the state government lobbying and bribes), it will suck the life out of the beachfront.

lol

[Dilaz89]

Scare campaign claims in Cott fight
ALANA BUCKLEY-CARR, The West Australian March 2, 2011, 2:45 am
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/8934448

The fight to "keep Cott low" has become an emotional scare campaign that is unnecessarily alarming the community, according to many long-term residents

And more money needs to be spent on the beachfront by local and State governments to entice private investors into the area.

After the State Government late last year forced the Town of Cottesloe to consider changing its height restrictions along Marine Parade, anti-development groups such as Keep Cott Low went on the offensive, arguing they did not want the beachside suburb to turn into a high-rise strip, similar to the Gold Coast, and that it should remain the way it is.

War declared in high-rise battle |

But the issue has divided the community, with many long-term residents voicing their disgust at Cottesloe's current state.

Many told _The West Australian _ that medium-rise, which the State Government has advocated, will only be in certain areas and needed to occur for Cottesloe to become a truly iconic place, alongside the likes of Bondi Beach and Manly.

Under the guidelines put forward by the State Government, a maximum of five storeys would be permitted for lots fronting Marine Parade, between Eric and Forrest streets.

But anything above three storeys would have to be set back on the block to reduce shadowing of the beach, which is a constant worry of anti-development campaigners.

The exceptions to this rule are at the Ocean Beach Hotel site and the Il Lido restaurant site, which would be permitted to go as high as eight storeys.

Architect Paul Jones lives on Little Marine Parade and says that developers could build up to six storeys without it affecting the shadows on the beach.

He has been advocating for change for several years, saying Cottesloe was tired, run-down and shabby.

"A lot of tourists get off the plane and head straight to Cottesloe Beach - they would be horribly disappointed," he said.

He is keen for the entire area to be rejuvenated and says the taller height restrictions that the State Government wants are necessary to entice private investment in the area.

But he also believes that local and State governments need to inject capital into the tourist haven in order to make the most of Cottesloe Beach's natural beauty.

"If you look along there at the moment, with respect to the building owners, it's all crap," Mr Jones said.

"You go to Noosa or Cairns and you see beautifully designed hand rails going down to the beach, great cafes. All we've got in Cottesloe are bits of termite-twisted pine bolted together."

WA football great Brian Sierakowski has been a vocal opponent of keeping the area low rise and is keen to see the area rejuvenated, saying that at the moment, "it's a bloody s…hole".

He had no problem with the five-storey restriction imposed by the Government because it would allow people to put a restaurant or small bar on the ground floor of a residential area.

And stockbroker Simon Yeo said he was all for development and believed the area needed a mix of small bars to get away from the current "beer barn" atmosphere.

Curtin Avenue resident Simon Rodrigues said the area was "crapsville" and dismissed suggestions that it would be turned into a high-rise strip.

Planning Minister John Day rejected suggestions that the Government would allow Cottesloe to become a high-rise development such as the Gold Coast.
"High-rise is 20 to 30 storeys. We would not want anything like that here," Mr Day said. "Cottesloe is not just about local residents. It's an important location for the whole of Western Australia."

[aaronaugi1]

Originally Posted by Dilaz89

Scare campaign claims in Cott fight
ALANA BUCKLEY-CARR, The West Australian March 2, 2011, 2:45 am
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/8934448

And stockbroker Simon Yeo said he was all for development and believed the area needed a mix of small bars to get away from the current "beer barn" atmosphere.

Cottesloe would benefit particularly from the limiting of venue capacity to 120 persons, rather than the monopolised beer-barn arrangement there at the moment.

It would certainly keep away a lot of the population who go to Cottesloe merely to go to the pub. I'm sure the 'local' residents see this as a good thing.

[Indian Ocean]

Overshadowing of the beach is only going to be a problem up till 10.00am during summer. After then the sun is more then high enough and far enough in the sky to excuse it from being considered an issue.

Rockingham doesnt seem to have a problem with highrise beach front...maybe they should start pushing for GC style development. Geographically its quite interesting, it has calm beaches and has room to grow as a high density area, without upsetting stupid nimby types. Infact high density would make Rockingham far more desirable then it currently is. Plus the angle of its coast line would ensure that overshadowing would only occur on other highrise and not the beach itself, and only for a brief time of the day anyway.

[aaronaugi1]

I think we all know it has nothing to do with overshadowing the beach.

It's more to do with overshadowing on houses further back from the beach during the afternoon and the loss of views. The owners are concerned about their property values and nothing more.

[crave]

this isn't about overshadowing...

this is about people protecting tha lining in their wallets...

[Sanj]

the funny thing is crave i dont see it having a negative effect on property values. in fact i think you could argue it eventually having a positive effect

[samboy]

They can't think beyond the really "obvious" Sanj.

[ryan79]

It will add to property values for those not losing views. For those losing views they absolutely will lose value on their homes.

But too bad cos you don't own a view.

[crave]

Originally Posted by Sanj

the funny thing is crave i dont see it having a negative effect on property values. in fact i think you could argue it eventually having a positive effect

nah i don't think it would have a negative effect on property values either, i'm thinking more along tha lines of existing accommodation and businesses in tha area, who prolly don't want competition...

[Nate Von Longneck II]

* losing views will reduce property values
* a tower looking down into your back yard, and overshadowing your house, will reduce affected property values
* increased supply of beach front property with better views than yours will reduce property values

[GAbE27]

Originally Posted by aaronaugi1

Cottesloe would benefit particularly from the limiting of venue capacity to 120 persons, rather than the monopolised beer-barn arrangement there at the moment.

It would certainly keep away a lot of the population who go to Cottesloe merely to go to the pub. I'm sure the 'local' residents see this as a good thing.

the sunday session at the cott hotel is actually one of the main tourist attractions enticing young people to perth. Its in the lonely planet and has been shown various times on international TV travel shows (E! and one I saw on CNN in hong kong). So it may piss of a few stale locals but its benefit to the wider perth area is quite high!

[GAbE27]

Originally Posted by Sanj

the funny thing is crave i dont see it having a negative effect on property values. in fact i think you could argue it eventually having a positive effect

I dissagree. Water views are one of the only things that can dramatically increase or devalue a property.

reference: Shane Greive, - lecturer Planning for Housing, Curtin Uni

And I tend to agree with him, its all perceived by the potential purchaser. for example bush forever sites you dont need to have a view of the bush, just a perceived image of being in the bush, same with inner city.

[Sanj]

a small % of houses will lose their views, in fact a VERY small %. on the other hand the entire suburb will have their values improved by the increased amenities and it being less run down. i dare say the overall effect would be at the very least neutral if not an increase

incidentally i cant believe the concept of views leading to higher prices is even being discussed, of course it leads to higher prices. the point is whether the overall suburb would lose more than it gains re prop values and i cant see it being the case.

look at how much mt lawley and even NB are worth now compared to a few years ago? improving amenties has a lot to do with it.

someone i know sold a 1 bed match apartment in 1 day recently for 500k in mt lawley. all because of amenities because the identical apartment 3 kms up the road is 100k cheaper

[Nate Von Longneck II]

Some great point gabs, I never thought of it like that.

[samboy]

Is there any way to measure the *value* of increased activity, liveliness, interest etc offset against any decline in value of losing views? How do prices compare over east ?

edit: Sanj is thinking along the same lines

PS: It's just me but I would never pay a premium to see a bit of water. People are conditioned to love water views. It's hype..just like the oscars.

[crave]

activity over view anyday... brunswick (east/north), northcote, preston were somewhat shit holes in many parts only a few years ago... would be like going from perth to guildford/midland... but becos it has good access to trams and train, it became tha "it" places to live, not only that, you could travel thru tha main city "centres" of these suburbs which are all mature in terms of restaurants/entertainment/shopping etc...

a house in preston now is like 600-700k...

[Kelli]

People like views because they think it's a status symbol, like anything that has limited availability.

[pikopancho]

The way it was reported in 'The West' was blatantly biased towards the developers, you'd think they'd be able to conceal their business interests a little better...were suggesting that only a minority supported the "Keep Cott Low" would think that Western Suburbs folk are quite prone to Nimbyism.

Don't really see whats the big deal with the development personally-its hardly high-rise, mind you local residents are always going to protest.

Will be interesting to see how this affects Barnett at the next election given he's the local member.

[BartBart]

It is funny online - the link to the article referred to the Cottesloe levels as mid-rise, whilst the article calls it highrise.