Projects & Discussions | Perth Waterfront | Urban Renewal - Page 2

BartBart · June 29th, 2009, 06:11 PM

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).

BartBart · June 30th, 2009, 04:02 AM

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)

dcmcd · June 30th, 2009, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BartBart

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.

samboy · June 30th, 2009, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcmcd

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.

ryan79 · June 30th, 2009, 04:46 AM

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.

stuwa · June 30th, 2009, 05:02 AM

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.

crave · June 30th, 2009, 05:06 AM

i'm with you stuwa...

Quote:

Originally Posted by samboy

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.

stuwa · June 30th, 2009, 05:10 AM

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

samboy · June 30th, 2009, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crave

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.

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)

crave · June 30th, 2009, 05:18 AM

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

desperaterobots · June 30th, 2009, 05:40 AM

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....

Nate Von Longneck II · June 30th, 2009, 05:50 AM

You guys need more imagination.

A bridge could look fantastic.

crave · June 30th, 2009, 05:57 AM

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

Nate Von Longneck II · June 30th, 2009, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crave

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?

dcmcd · June 30th, 2009, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samboy

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.

BartBart · June 30th, 2009, 06:10 AM

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.

crave · June 30th, 2009, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate Von Longneck II

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.

acc521 · June 30th, 2009, 11:30 AM

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.

samboy · July 1st, 2009, 02:27 AM

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.a...ntentID=151985

NailZ · July 1st, 2009, 02:43 AM

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.

June 29th, 2009, 06:11 PM	#21
BartBart In the sweetspot Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 8,601 Likes (Received): 122	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). __________________ He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery. Harold Wilson

June 30th, 2009, 04:02 AM	#22
BartBart In the sweetspot Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 8,601 Likes (Received): 122	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) __________________ He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery. Harold Wilson

June 30th, 2009, 04:46 AM	#25
ryan79 Destorying our history Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Perth Posts: 9,847 Likes (Received): 100	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. __________________ I'm free to say what I want

June 30th, 2009, 05:18 AM	#30
crave fierce buildings papi. Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: perth - in tha heat... Posts: 8,430 Likes (Received): 56	yes i do plan on returning. my family and friends are in perth... so i have an interest... __________________ worst. architecture. ever.

June 30th, 2009, 05:57 AM	#33
crave fierce buildings papi. Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: perth - in tha heat... Posts: 8,430 Likes (Received): 56	i can't wait to see to see this magical bridge will do nothing but enhance tha river!!! __________________ worst. architecture. ever.

June 30th, 2009, 05:02 AM	#26
stuwa certains mots étrangers Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 687 Likes (Received): 5	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.

June 30th, 2009, 05:10 AM	#28
stuwa certains mots étrangers Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 687 Likes (Received): 5	Hang on. Where's this bridge supposed to be going?

June 30th, 2009, 05:40 AM	#31
desperaterobots Full of nukey goodness Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,137 Likes (Received): 83	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....

June 30th, 2009, 05:50 AM	#32
Nate Von Longneck II bye bye Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 4,010 Likes (Received): 0	You guys need more imagination. A bridge could look fantastic.

June 30th, 2009, 06:10 AM	#36
BartBart In the sweetspot Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 8,601 Likes (Received): 122	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. __________________ He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery. Harold Wilson

June 30th, 2009, 11:30 AM	#38
acc521 Do you expect me to talk? Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Melbourne, Perth, London Posts: 9,942 Likes (Received): 186	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. __________________ The City Lane: Travel, Food & Culture From Around The World.

July 1st, 2009, 02:27 AM	#39
samboy Registered User Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 9,976 Likes (Received): 195	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.a...ntentID=151985

July 1st, 2009, 02:43 AM	#40
NailZ Registered User Join Date: May 2005 Location: Perth Posts: 437 Likes (Received): 1	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.

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