#134
Post
by stumpjumper » Tue Jul 03, 2007 5:25 pm
Will, I wish I had your confidence in artists' impressions. I have seen dwgs on the LMC site which are supposedly current, and they show Hart's Mill surrounded by three level buildings (3 1/2 levels if they have semi-underground parking). The lower half, at least of Hart's Mill would then be surrounded, except for 'view corridors' to the NE and the NW . The same site shows a possible colonisation of the 'back 1/5th' of the water in No 1 Dock with three level buildings, and many other variations. Then again, Newport Quays told me a few days ago that 'nothing around Hart's Mill has been designed'. Either that statement is true, or they do have designs but want to keep their options open. I suspect the latter, and not because of any conspiracy theory. Developers like to keep their plans fairly close. they want buyers to buy now, not wait until something better comes along.
For what it's worth, I am not against the redevelopment of the Port. I'm just personally not happy with what seem to me to be the many lost opportunities in the present setup.
If it were all up to me, and if there weren't many constraints...
I'd take all industry off Lefevre Peninsula, which I see as prime residential land - both seaward and river sides of it. I'd dredge a channel due east past the northern tip of the Lefevre Peninsula and dig a series of inland docks, turning basins etc around the unused and non-mangrove area to the west of the Salisbury Highway/Port Wakefield Rd intersection.
By doing this, the heavy rail and road freight would not have to access the peninsula at all. There would be easy connections for road and rail freight to the east, north and west. It would take pressure off the freight route through the suburbs and east of the CBD onto the South East Freeway. All heavy traffic could go 'around the top' and miss the suburbs altogether.
Moreover, there's no room for expansion on the Lefevre Peninsula. Once the eastern (ie river) coastline is built out by industry, what then? Dig inland pools in the peninsula to accommodate more industry? Of course not. They'll have to move east, to the dry swamp between the Port and the Port Wakefield Road. Just what I 'm suggesting above. So it will have to hapopen anyway, why not bite the bullet and start now?
OK, cost is huge, but once dredged only the approaches would need much maintenance dredging. The inland pools, like Rotterdam, would tend to stay deep, and there is a huge amount of room for expansion over there.
Both sides of the Lefevre Peninsula could be then be developed for housing. The income from the sale of all those waterfront blocks would help subsidise the creation of the inland shipways. No more need for a third river crossing, no more need for trucks to go through the old port centre. You could carve more waterways in the sandy Lefevre Peninsula to amke more expensive waterfront blocks, maybe even going through to the sea. The benefits to the whole city and state would be enormous.
Ah, dreams.
My problem is that even if something like the above isn't feasible, we are still settling for a far worse result than we should. That this state of affairs is a function of what I consider to be a fairly ordinary government in league with bottom-line driven developers who don't have to live with the results of their work is not a conspiracy theory, it's just a point of view. I would hate to think it was a fact. That wold mean that the conspiracy is between the govt and the developers, and against the interests of the people.
Last edited by
stumpjumper on Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
of course it wouldn't work now (where would that fit into water restrictions?) but it's still a cool idea. would be our own little venice with bogans rowing gondolas and serenading with chisel songs. 
