Comments for History Council of Western Australia

Comment on Perth Waterfront debate by RM

RM — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 02:42:35 +0000

I’m going to swim against the tide.
I think the current proposal will fundamentally improve the city – by allowing the CBD to expand towards the river. Let’s be clear about what is being proposed: the expansion of the city block in the only direction it can realistically go – southwards. Hay and Murray Streets both have height restrictions that discourage developers from looking north. Wellington Street, because it’s a broad boulevard, does encourage higher buildings but commercial centres thrive when they can be concentrated within a cluster of city blocks. Whatever we may wish for, Perth’s CBD must and will grow. This is an opportunity for that growth to be planned and managed in a way that offers long-term opportunities. Until now the CBD has grown in a thin ribbon, virtually down one street. Giving it another two blocks into which it can expand will strengthen its viability.
The only issue I see with this project is that I don’t believe the Government has been entirely honest in promoting it as bringing the river into the city. It’s really about bring the city down to the river – and offering up a modest water feature (the inlet) as a trade-off.
What will we lose? A stretch of ground that is reclaimed river.
Yes, it was a meeting place for a variety of activities over the years – and those activities will continue elsewhere without losing any of their relevance or vitality.

Comment on Perth Waterfront debate by SM

SM — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:08:09 +0000

Six years now in Perth. Having lived in quite a few cities, on quite a few continents, I think Perth people appreciate their parks, green spaces, beaches and clean air. Many however do not realise what a great city this is to live in for real quality of life and health benefits. I am unconvinced that such a development will, in the long-term, be a positive move for Perth.

I use the Esplanade area a lot (3-4 times a week) and I am not alone, hundreds of people every day cycle, run, play rugby, footy, frisbee, do boot camps or circuit training in the space that will be developed. Many are office workers who use this space instead of expensive gyms to work out in.

I also worry that iconic events, both sporting and fund raising, will suffer. The Santos Round the River bike Ride, the Chevron Perth City to Surf Marathon, the Asics Bridges fun run, the HBF run for a reason, the Nissan/BRW Corporate triathlon, the City of Perth Olympic triathlon-all are affected by these proposed developments nevermind the 10,000 of cars who drive along it each day.

Deep down, if local government had demonstrated a good track record of such developments I would maybe be more forgiving of such plans. However I have not, in these 6 years, seen the monstrosity on Wellington St completed, the site of the new Eagles football club or a variety of other project completed/decided upon, or completed on time and in budget and this is most worrying.

I have asked several times on the Waterfront development site for answers to these and other issues but have (in a month) as yet heard nothing back from them at all. Not even an acknowledgement that the questions have been asked. I do not trust them to complete such a development and I think it will spoil what is a great resource in the centre of Perth that differentiates it from other cities in the world.

Comment on Perth Waterfront debate by Lise Summers

Lise Summers — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 11:04:54 +0000

An online petition is available at change.org (search on ‘rethink the Waterfront development’ and the City Gatekeepers are preparing an official petition for presentation to Parliament. You can find the petition on their website, http://www.citygatekeepers.org.au or you can attend the rally on the Esplanade at 11am on 26 February.

Comment on Perth Waterfront debate by Chris and Philippa Wiggins

Chris and Philippa Wiggins — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:59:28 +0000

We were taken aback to hear Colin Barnett on ABC radio the morning of 31 Jan justify the project as a legacy to future generations.

Green space is by far the greatest legacy any city government leaves for future generations. Replacing Perth’s scarce remaining green space and vistas over the Swan River with a small harbour surrounded with high buildings can not be justified. Describing it as a legacy for future generations is unconscionable. The project destroys what makes Perth an outstandingly visual city, and replaces it with a poor imitation of what has been constructed in Melbourne or Dubai.

A Perth taxi driver commented to us that this plan is no better than the canal project prior to the 2005 election. Taxi drivers usually get it right.

Comment on Perth Waterfront debate by Vivien Matson-Larkin

Vivien Matson-Larkin — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 03:16:23 +0000

With the current mess with water quality & visibility in the river due to the horrendous plume that can still be see from the air & underwater by scuba divers due to the Freo harbour dredging to even think of doing something like this right in front of the city is madness. Look onsite at the Water for Resources Centre’s data about water movement, oxygen degradation, etc. Much of that data sourced from Water Corp, Swan River Trust + other govt depts .. the stats don’t look good for flushing of anything, which is why the algae blooms have become more of a problem, so adding another mess on top of the current water flow problems, lack of rain decent enough to flush the river, etc, is going to cause even more problems.

Comment on Carnarvon Space and Technology Museum by Andrew Fox

Andrew Fox — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:15:14 +0000

I was born the same year Neil, Buzz and Mike took that giant leap for mankind. Watching the footage of this revolutionary leap for humanity is a refreshing reminder of the good us as human beings can achieve. Please advise what you are seeking to assist in Buzz’s visit to WA.

Kindest Regards

Andrew

Comment on Perth Waterfront debate by Lise Summers

Lise Summers — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 02:50:06 +0000

Our Media release has been picked up by the Subiaco Post, 21/01/2012.

Comment on Perth Waterfront debate by Diane and Bob Malcolm

Diane and Bob Malcolm — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:19:23 +0000

By all means we need some development around the foreshore but certainley not what this Liberal goverment presumes we the community agree to support , (according to the planning minister. ) This arrogant goverments plans on this important issue hopefuly can be stopped.

Comment on Perth Waterfront debate by admin

admin — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 04:55:50 +0000

Public open space, and the requirements of a heavily urbanised population for access to that space, were key issues in the development of major cities from the 1820s onward. The 1833 British Committee for Public Walks, for example, identified that an urban population needed to have access to active recreational spaces for activities like promenades and games in order to be healthy. The Esplanade and Stirling Gardens were created as a direct result of these international concerns and continue to be relevant today. It is by understanding the history of the site that we can identify those elements of its heritage that can and should be incorporated into any development.

Comment on Perth Waterfront debate by PQ

PQ — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:03:12 +0000

“Sense of place” is an interesting argument for protecting the Esplanade. Nothing, as you say, “nourishes my sense of place” quiet like lawn and date palms. When I’m on the esplanade I feel like a could be in any city in the world, it is completely ubiquitous. I don’t think it’s helpful to cling to past mistakes just for histories sake.
You mentioned replacement of the lost public space but surely the taller the buildings and higher the density, the more room available for public space. Some people need to face the fact that Perth is a city and urban not suburban development is required.