Projects & Discussions | Perth Waterfront | Urban Renewal

[Scraperfan]

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]

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]

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).

[crave]

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

[aaronaugi1]

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.

[docker]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[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.

[BartBart]

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.

[crave]

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

[ryan79]

Originally Posted by BartBart

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

They still can.

[ryan79]

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]

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]

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]

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

[BartBart]

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]

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?