| Author |
(older)  Topic  (newer) |
|
trevor1
WA
Australia
229 Posts |
Posted 03/06/2008, 6:49 pm
   
|
Juddy said...
As a kiter who calls Leighton his local (well, really it's just my regular spot) my initial reaction to the proposal was "holy shizen...what sort of wind shadow is this going to create for Leighton/Dutchies & maybe even Swannie...???"
As a kiter who deals with energy issues on a daily basis through my chosen career, I was particularly impressed to read/hear that the proposal would be reliant on solar/wind/ & possibly wave generated power.
As kiter, I'm always concerned about the environment that we all kite in, particularly the local marine environment. As a kiter concerned about the environment (especially the connection between urban sprawl & it's impact on energy consumption) I would probably commend this proposal for attempting to minimise or at least offset some of the proposal's negative environmental impacts.
As a kiter concerned about the ever increasing gap between the have's & have not's in society, one of my concerns was that the proposal would be targetted towards becoming a hoity toity la-dee-da rich bastard's enclave with their petrol guzzling stink boats.
Certainly, high profile & wealthy people up & down the WA coast will have legitimate reasons to push developments such as this. Equally, the regular beach goer, individual, families & community groups need to be given an opportunity to express their support or condemnation of similar proposals. In a democratic society, equal consideration of the pros & cons must be afforded to such a proposal, rather than the outright "not in my backyard" carpetting of this idea (it's not like we get enough NIMBY-ism in Perth as it is...)
To each of my concerns about this proposal, I can see some significant benefits to Fremantle, to Perth & to WA. Whilst I'm yet to commit one way or the other, to those that have proposed this idea (and I have no connection to them) I say congratulations & well done. You have managed to stimulate conversation and discussion about urban development issues that have for far too long not been on the agenda.
What I don't understand is why a balanced "middle of the road" lpost like this gets a thumbs down.
|
| |
| Featured Photo 
Uploaded by: LoxPix
(View more)
|
|
|
Cajj77
Australia
1 Posts |
Posted 03/06/2008, 7:02 pm
|
developers will not be able to guarantee that they will not damage the beaches to the north
even with computer modelling of seabed sand flows its only going to be an estimate of the probablity they can give you
fundamentally against anything that could damage leighton, cott swanni and city beaches
why take the risk?
WA coast is low rise - with the exception of bondy's tower at scarborough (how do you think he got that through council?) - lets keep it that way
if you like darling harbour, dubai or mandurah then go there |
| |
|
|
waveslave
WA
Australia
2744 Posts |
|
|
niall barrett
WA
Australia
188 Posts |
Posted 03/06/2008, 10:15 pm
|
I have been a little personal in some of may attacks, but my vitriol is misplaced.
My views, I believe, are no knee jerk reaction or Nimbyism, but those of someone a little older, wiser and more informed than the average reader of this forum.
I am more aware perhaps of the money that pulls the puppet strings of those with their hands on the government tiller.
I may cycle to work , drive a Barina [just 1.4L 'Shmoo' when I do drive], and live in a passive solar house too on a tiny block, but all thats baloney really because I am rich and by world standards we are all rich, filthy stinking rich, and the strongest predictor, nay determinant of consumption is just that>>>>>wealth. And as the joke went " I just read the worlds shortest book..."impoverished people I have met while kitesurfing"'
So lets sheath out swords, and save the fight for those who attack us.
My Vitriol is meant for those merchants, those userers, those defilers of the temple, who will detroy nature and profit from the exercise. It is also meant for the spindoctors, those purveyors of valium for the new generation, who soothe your troubled consciences with their silver tongued lies.
Where after all is the confict in declaring a project 'environmentally friendly', whilst building pens for rich mens toys .........super yachts that consume 800 litres of diesel per hour, Whilst consuming vast quantities of material and energy to create an offshore island. Whilst creating communities solely for the use of the wealthy and privileged.
Talk of renewable energy, recycling etc is the reality of marketing to the Y generation. GREENWASHING.
For example Currently 3 different large energy consumers in this state [including the desal plant] lay claim that 'their ' power use is generated by the Dandaragan wind farm, but how can they all be right? We are per capita the greatest producers of greenhouse gases in the world worse even than Yaknks thanks to our reliance on coal fired power stations and this project will not redress that.
345 hectares generated at a cost of 100 million dollars [someone felt they developers were extending charity towards the cause, he must have flunked Maths at school]
I tried working it out.
The market price for Cottesloe waterfront land is $10,000 per sq m. By that reckoning their total investment of 100 milliion will be returned by the sale of just one hectare, the other 344 hectares will be profit!!!!!!
34.4 billion dollars of profit.
That sort of money can corrupt the most principled, buy the most reputable, charm the most cynical, and deceive the most intelligent. That sort of money can buy governments, councils, anything. That sort of money can reveal a nations commitment to real democracy, not one where to paraphrase 'The Jam'....:"the people want what the people get",which is what this whole West Australian article is about...........MARKETING. |
| |
|
|
lostinlondon
VIC
Australia
669 Posts |
Posted 03/06/2008, 11:50 pm
|
Yep, so therein lies the paradox. What hasn't been explained much is that Concrete made with Portland Cement (most common) is one of the biggest contributors to CO2 emissions in the world. 30% or something like that! If a project truly is green it has to have a reasonable timetable for recovering the carbon emissions in construction, not just the emissions in occupation.
The paradox of reducing personal consumption is that the less I consume, the more money I should have left over, to uh, consume things with. (Unless you like putting money in the bank and watching the zeros add up) Like having a fuel efficient car, people tend to drive them more because they can drive twice as far for the same amount of money, doing trips that they may have caught a train or walked for, net gain to environment= ZERO, but the owner feels good because they own a Prius and that's a green car, right?
I really loved Perth when I was there over Christmas, but its like the Aussie version of Texas without the guns and cowboy hats. Big cars, big houses! High density development of existing inner city sites has to occur otherwise it will be airconditioned housing all the way to Lancellin! |
| |
|
|
SaveTheWhales
WA
Australia
550 Posts |
Posted 04/06/2008, 7:45 am
|
I'm with the developers. 
Anyone with Half a brain would know that, when you change the natural shore line currents, you also destroy the natural food source that is carried with it in effect creating deadwater & marine life disappears !!
Stuff the enviromental feasability studies which will see someone backhand half a million dollars to say yes  - geeze - just give me $5 bucks petrol to get to the Wonderfull freo wharf restaurants (small scale development) & look over the side at the thriving unaffected marine life - microbial of course under half meter of sludge  !!!
Where do they think there run off is going to go ???? Its bad enough that 'some ' narrow minded people epecially stupid rich ones  , tip everything under the sun down drains - if will save them a Quid. With their special landscaping goes fertilisers etc and we all know what happens in the Swan river with that. But that'll be ok cause the Ocean will drag it all away, and no one will be the wiser  .
Last time I went crusing to Rotto (launch) my marine maps showed the deep water currents flow past there. No Worries Mate - we'll blame it on the Cargo ships !!!
To end on a high note ...
All may end well if one of our Flash as, High Tec faulty Collins class Submarines accidentally bumbs into it - blowing it all to Hell - leaving a nice little reef & flat water spot, Tax free of course 
p.s Name witheld in case they want to Name it after me 
|
| |
|
|
shmoo
WA
Australia
40 Posts |
Posted 04/06/2008, 10:22 am
|
Cheers to everyone who posted, seems in the end we managed to have almost all sides of the debate represented. Nice work.
Also loved the objectivity within some of them - a lack of understanding often precedes intense questioning and in the end, a more balanced and holistic grasp of the matter at hand.
|
| |
|
| |
|
campers
WA
Australia
63 Posts |
|
|
trevor1
WA
Australia
229 Posts |
Posted 04/06/2008, 5:00 pm
|
"Favourite Spots: Millionaires [artificial reef, Cottesloe]"
Any effect on the environment with this one?
|
| |
|
|
niall barrett
WA
Australia
188 Posts |
Posted 05/06/2008, 12:42 am
|
Trevor what are you on about. The artificial reef is a subsurface rock structure about 3m deep and occuying the surface area of one suburban block. What are you btrying to say. No one is arguing against development, there are a hell of a lot of things in Perth that would benefit from a bit of development but this!!!
Look my biggest single issue personally with the development [although there are many] is that it will totally blanket the wind for KMs to the north.
If you doubt me just look at the Computer generated picture of the proposed development in this week's Western Suburbs Weekly taking an aerial view from the South west. The 20 storey tower blocks tower right over the South of Port beach. Oh and if you like that sickly sweet real estate spin that article will give it to you in truckloads.
If your'e not concerned about a wind shadow then i think we can safely assume you are going to the beach to get a suntan or perv the bikinis. Personally I cannot see how the many kiters and windsurfers who live in the area [many for the very reason of the wind] wouldnt be upset by the fact that getting on the water in a Seabreeze will mean a trip to Scarborough and I am not exaggerating. To hear them all saying how nice it would be to head down there for a coffee on the marina frankly has me choking in disbelief. What is going on, is it the stuff the kids are smoking these days or what? [funny that they have just proved that it shrinks peoples brains]
Unfortunately if is that easy to get all the windsurfers / kiters and surfers to think its a great idea, the cause is already lost and I can see no real barriers to the proposal at all. I might as well become an investor and not a whinger. i might make enough money so that I can buy one of those african child starving, famine causing ethanol powered Hummers that George Bush and his buddies are so keen on. I can see the future now.......... us telling our incredulous kids how we used to get wind/wave jumping at Dutch Inn.
If all these people want to live in Dubai, London or New York and really think those places are so great, they should take the next flight there, spend a few months and see how it feels. Flog the kite/windsurfer and get the leather pants and the snow white tan. The nicest places in the world have not been built by the grand plans and great fortunes of megadevelopments they have evolved gradually on a human rate and scale. Historically this kind of grand project has only ever been done in communist dictatorships til now [Think the Beijing Olympics, the Three Gorges Dam or the defilement of russian cities with grand high rise housing projects under Stalin] because totalitarian states can ride slipshod over the voiceless people. Well the new capitalism is the face of totalitariansim in Oz and the spindoctors are so slick that the populace doesnt even know that they are been stolen from [or rather, to be more accurate, shagged right royally up the rear]. |
| |
|
|
D_Meredith79
WA
Australia
567 Posts |
|
|
waveslave
WA
Australia
2744 Posts |
|
|
poor relative
WA
Australia
6920 Posts |
Posted 05/06/2008, 12:34 pm
|
Isn't it wonderful that all we have to complain about is a multi million dollar development that will finally destroy our already toxic/depleted marine environment and throw a wind shadow across our local kite spots.
Might be time to exercise my freedom and move to the the country? |
| |
|
|
sci
WA
Australia
566 Posts |
Posted 05/06/2008, 12:41 pm
|
http://www.thepalm.ae/jumeirah/news---media/video-gallery-1/the-palm/
I was in Dubai last week and was totally overwhelmed and shocked to witness this monstrosity that lies offshore in Dubai. It is so intimidating from any angle wether you are in front of it or looking up the coastline to it. They are now building the World which is going to be the same size as Paris!?
Perth has many other projects to accomplish before even attempting such a lavish development. Lets get our infrastructure and city sorted first. |
| |
|
|
shmoo
WA
Australia
40 Posts |
Posted 05/06/2008, 3:04 pm
|
What if we all agreed that this was possibly THE most ridiculous, greedy, environmentally risky, politically manipulating, financially wasteful and socially elitist development to ever be presented to WA residents.
But at the same time, realised the potential for creating serious change in the way future urban developments in Perth and WA take place through an unprecedented and rigourous adoption of sustainable development initiatives never before seen Australia, let alone WA. Greenwashing aside for a moment.
What if this alternative model worked and it paved the way for a complete shift in urban planning and development paradigms both locally, nationally and globally?
It would be a big risk, a gamble, some would make truck-loads of money, segments of the coast and its localised environment could change forever, it might superficially benifit one class over another, it might alter the ability for localised residents to pursue their recreational activities...
But when all those localised negatives are weighed up against against the positive systemic impact's such a model might have on a state, national or global scale, the arguments for environmental impact, cost per hectare ratio, inequality of access immediately become morally unarguable?
Dont know if any anyone has read 'Heat' by George Monbiot, but he makes a point on climate change along the lines of 'a single person taking their car off the road to reduce carbon production, merely free's road space for other cars, which in turn, occupy its space' 'In order to really reduce vehicle carbon production, governments need to close roads, reduce parking spaces and restrict vehicle usage' (not an actual quote, just from memory!).
So he's saying there's no significant change without significant pain.
This presents the question;
Would anyone, as a coastal resident and recreational user, be prepared to sacrifice one small area of marine habitat if it saved the remaining?
Tough question to answer i reckon.
|
| |
|
|
hoop
WA
Australia
710 Posts |
Posted 05/06/2008, 6:10 pm
|
Shmoo, you've obviously got some sort of involvement in this project. Either that or you just like writing these long winded essays to make yourself sound intelligent. If you have any sort of respect for the marine environment that you kite and surf in you should be able to see that this is an absolute load of crap. You should drop the uni scholar act and see this for what it is, a blatant money making scheme.
|
| |
|
|
niall barrett
WA
Australia
188 Posts |
Posted 06/06/2008, 12:54 am
|
Shmoo, you are clearly well read and informed on the subject of sustainability, but i can see you starting to back pedal now, knowing that you are backing a lemon. Time to admit it.
This development makes me puke because of the hypocrisy of attempting to clothe its sole motives of profit, in the green sheet of sustainability. To date Perth's attempts at planning more sustainable communities have been a failure [see todays 'west australian' article], because ultimately centrally planned developments are about the profits [get land cheap and sell it expensive]. When the blocks are sold, all the promises about schools, doctors and public transport evaporate.
Sustainability must come from the bottom up and not the top down. The guts got ripped out of cities across the Western world in the 50s and 60s by planners foreseeing 'a brighter future for us all' in the burbs. The lack of foresight with much of that is clear now.
Is sustainability about rich baby boomers, parking their diesel guzzling stink boats in front of the air condition condos, before nicking down to 'Yalls' in the Cayenne for the day? I think not.
Some of the most sustainable lifestyles are been adopted by many of my friends in the Burbs lying around Freo. Just choosing to consume less, use bikes and public transport, make low water use gardens, install solar hot water systems etc. It saves cash and feels good. No hype, no marketing, just hearts in the right place people power. That, and a few economic incentives, is what is needed.
Part of that philosophy is 'think global and act local' which is why many Fremantle inhabitants would be proud of being termed 'activists'.
The 'Leighton Action Coalition' may have been partly Nimbyism its true, but prior to Colin Barnett making an ass of himself by telling thousands of demonstrators that "their actions would make no difference as the decisions laid where they belonged in the seats of Power" [or words to that effect. I was there], Multiplex had planned 'wall to wall' suburban blocks. Some of it along the cables stretch was absolute beach front,, and would have blocked public access to that stretch of beach. Well, he had to back pedal too and the new Leighton is the sort of thing most of us would support, clever regeneration of a brown field site. I note that not even Colin is backing 'the Island' it's such a turkey.
Kiters, windsurfers and surfers tap into natures renewable energy sources, wind and waves to get they're speed thrills.........we are not petrolheads and we should rightly be proud of that.
The only environmentally positive side of the 'Island' is the proposed density of dwellings. But that in it self is a negative if infrastructure is already strangled by the logistical problems on a narrow peninsula, with restricted transportation corridors. Note that The proposed population of 20.000 is 3 times the current population of Freo.
And yes I did read 'Heat' and you may have noticed that George promotes Buses as the sustainable solution to urban transport. The people that would be buying on the island haven't seen the inside of a bus since they left scotch college, and ain't changing now. If a fraction of the money been earmarked to build the island was spent on interlinking our existing light rail system then we might be on the right track to benefit all 1.4 million Perth inhabitants not 20.000 priviliged people
The promotional material is the most audacious pack of lies........ 'a zero carbon community driving around in Golf buggies'...... Yeah, right!!!!!! , and as I said it is aimed at pulling the wool over the eyes of even clever people like Prof Newman [and yourself of course]
1200 people have read your post so far and for that i thank you, as i think now the majority of them have thought a little more deeply, and are all a little more aware of the truth of what is happening, and only en-masse people power can avert the worst excesses of development we will increasingly face. |
| |
|
|
shmoo
WA
Australia
40 Posts |
Posted 06/06/2008, 11:02 am
|
OK - i've been told to be quiet now so i will.
I'll even resist the urge to come up with a final thought provoking quote as apparently thinking outside your comfort zone is not well received on seabreeze... And it makes me look like a pretentious ass*ole. Oops, there i go again. Sorry.
Never had and never will have any involvement in the project - period. Nor do i consider myself well read on any of the subjects within these posts. I reckon most people, like me, form views on issues they actually know very little about, (S**T, here i go again) but you have to have your reasons for taking one side over another right? Surely talking about it with others might (Cr*p, just let me get this out!) help you form a more informed view... I thought thats what forums where for? Perhaps not though. I'll stick to asking questions about string and rip-stop nylon in the future.
Cheers Niall for sparking some debate. And cheers to the guy who told me to shut up.
Bugger, this post was really meant to be no longer than the first sentence. And i totally contradicted myself in the second paragraph.
Out. |
| |
|
|
hosko
WA
Australia
391 Posts |
Posted 06/06/2008, 12:47 pm
|
unfortunately it is the nature of this forum and kitesurfers in general that siding with development will have everyone jumping on your back which is why i haven't bothered commenting on this after my comments on the oakajee post.
kitesurfers/windsurfers/surfers are generally inclined to be anti-development so that their pastimes are not disturbed which is ok but sometimes a more holistic and broader minded thought process is required.
that is all from me.
steve
(pro kiting, sailing and everything else water based & pro development) |
| |
|
|
trevor1
WA
Australia
229 Posts |
Posted 06/06/2008, 3:02 pm
|
hosko said...
unfortunately it is the nature of this forum and kitesurfers in general that siding with development will have everyone jumping on your back which is why i haven't bothered commenting on this after my comments on the oakajee post.
kitesurfers/windsurfers/surfers are generally inclined to be anti-development so that their pastimes are not disturbed which is ok but sometimes a more holistic and broader minded thought process is required.
that is all from me.
steve
(pro kiting, sailing and everything else water based & pro development)
Not necessarily. In my experience most kitesurfers (and I am guessing, windsurfers,) are not like the bong-smoking, Centrelink earning, panel van driving stereotypical surfer.
Instead, they are more the professional, middle to upper income earning, Westerns Suburbs windwanker (myself included)! Unortunately, gear costs money, and we all have to have the latest gear each season.
So I guess although most might be anti-development (particularly when there is a risk the development will sh!t on one's own backyard), there is most likely to be a glass of chardonay (not a bong) next to the computer as one agitates for the environment, whilst thinking about when next to shave the legs for the peleton (spelling?) on Saturday morning that finishes up at some waank Cott cafe.
|
| |
|
| |
|
hosko
WA
Australia
391 Posts |
Posted 08/06/2008, 12:41 am
|
trevor1 said...hosko said...
unfortunately it is the nature of this forum and kitesurfers in general that siding with development will have everyone jumping on your back which is why i haven't bothered commenting on this after my comments on the oakajee post.
kitesurfers/windsurfers/surfers are generally inclined to be anti-development so that their pastimes are not disturbed which is ok but sometimes a more holistic and broader minded thought process is required.
that is all from me.
steve
(pro kiting, sailing and everything else water based & pro development)
Not necessarily. In my experience most kitesurfers (and I am guessing, windsurfers,) are not like the bong-smoking, Centrelink earning, panel van driving stereotypical surfer. Instead, they are more the professional, middle to upper income earning, Westerns Suburbs windwanker (myself included)! Unortunately, gear costs money, and we all have to have the latest gear each season. So I guess although most might be anti-development (particularly when there is a risk the development will sh!t on one's own backyard), there is most likely to be a glass of chardonay (not a bong) next to the computer as one agitates for the environment, whilst thinking about when next to shave the legs for the peleton (spelling?) on Saturday morning that finishes up at some waank Cott cafe.
hahahahaha nice post. true and funny. |
| |
|
|
(older) Topic (newer) |
|
|
|
