Not sure if anyone else looked at the last image in the article from the West today http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=75806 and like me, realised that the northern end of the proposed Freo development will create one HUGE flat water arena in a SWster.


They also plan on creating another artificial reef for us surfers.

That makes sense, only rich people get artificial reefs in Perth.

Just had a little thingo about it on the news with a bunch of short interviews saying how nobody wanted it.

The interesting thing is, that if it was to be built that the 3.5km long break wall would be built first(obviously) followed by the "islands" closest to the breakwall, which could result in one all time flatwater section dureing construction

Wait and see
Matt

this made me think of how the city n buildings effect the seabreeze.. has anyone else noticed that the further away from the city you go the stronger the wind is. ie safety bay and lancelin etc always stronger than near perth and same with woodies etc have a couple extra knots compared to pinaroo .

and hey SCHMOO 'flat water location' my arse

You're not Ralph Sarich's son are you??

Oh Yeah and its ironic that the same issue of the West Australian is announcing that 'Bondy is back'. Certainly if he is not involved he would be proud of this one. It makes his environmentally disastrous observation city hotel look more green than Bob Brown.

Well, Perth and Freo is a massive suburban area, and I can't see it being any worse that putting up swathes of residential development in South Freo, with no eaves on the houses or trees to create natural shade. I was in Perth over Xmas and I couldn't believe how big house blocks are, its not sustainable to keep building out and out like that either.

Its going to make Lancellin a big trash dump too, it's not only sand that will be deposited on the nth side, but floating rubbish will eddie and be washed ashore there too.

There's good and bad in everything. Sucks about Lancellin though, at least the NWers will still work ;-)

I hope this idea gets canned as I'm sure there is plenty of Brownfield that should be developed in preference. As long as WA gets on and keeps investing in Public Transport to reduce car dependancy as well!

Glad to see this topic generating some debate. Developing coast is always going to be a super sensitive issue that boils blood from all sides. Like most, i know very little about the in's and out's of the proposal, so I'm going to do my best not to assume authority on any side.

I do think however, that it marks a period of change for how people might start to see Perth develop in the future. I'm very surprised Prof Newman has put his face behind it. A guy who is an authority on sustainable settlements, urban planning and transport. From the press release a few days ago, it sounded like they really were keen to push an environmentally sound, progressive urban development theme. Whether it actually supports these claims, in my view, is irrelevant at this stage, as like most i doubt it will get past the approvals stage.

What is important though, is that it could set the precedent in the future for planners, developers, governments etc. to except that the paradigm of regional development in WA, AU, the world has evolved and for more attention must be given to elements of planning that promote meaningful, sense-of-place, sustainable design.

They want to expand the counter-culture of Freo, great idea. Not just sell off another Mc Mansion house farm. There also seems to be an emphasis on maximising public space utilisation, bout time!

Keen to see what eventuates from the debate over time.


Niall from Cott - I wish...

Standard procedure,

they want to build some uggly arse development with big towers..., they already know that people will be against it and they will struggle to get approval.

The solution:

Come out with a 10 times uglier and bigger development spreading over the ocean.
By the time it get knock back and they agree to downsize to a more sensible project (the one they intended all along), everyone goes ppphhheeewwww!!!!!
That was a close call

Developers win, investors get cash and the wheel keep on turning

That was my conspiracy theory, you can quote me on that in a couple of years

How the hell do they expect to not absolutely devaste the marine environment?! Dredging, land reclaimation, importing materials - these guys are money-hungry little strokers with little consideration for modesty.
It's the like the foreshore development - there are so many social and environmental issues in our society and around the world, yet apparently there's a 'need' to spend billions of dollars on something to make us look like we're rich and ultramodern. What a joke.

Regarding the artificial reef - are they going to rely on the swell coming between Garden and Rottnest Islands and have it break with any decency only a handful of times a year? Little consolation for the surfers of Perth who will lose quite a few spots along the coast. You reckon Trigg and Scarborough is crowded now?! Just wait when Leighton, Cott, City Beach and all the beaches in between are knocked out.

Post it Trevor1, in the name of moral agency, post it...

Smoo
I am gutted that you too should be hoodwinked by the developers trite offerings.

If you look at the proposed map the Northern end has the proposed wind -blanketing high rise. The seawall would start about 50m out from just south of port beach surfclub but unlike sandtracks the wall would have a boat access channel between wall and beach so far from enhancing port beach I suspect it wil kill that too. Leighton wind is already stuffed later in the day as the seabreeze swings south and Cott to some extent too, and that is because of the cranes and storage tanks at the port nearly 1km inland of the western limits of the proposed developments.

I am all for environmentally friendly, affordable and low foot print urban development, but my views on the urgent need for the rehabilitation of on shore brown field sites stand. The proposed Island would actaully a 3 km walk from Down Town Freo so just how it is supposed to enhace Fremantles urban streetscape eludes me. Fremantle current blight is the hectares of prime land that is dedicated to car parking from The South Mole to the Fremantle traffic bridge, just look at it nect time you drive the Hummer by.

On the subject of seawalls and their ability to reflect waves at an angle to a beach break:
It is true that it can be an amazingly effective means of creating a quality wave with the reflected waves wedging up the original swell lines. Tullen strand in NW ireland [which is actually a natural cliff line and not a sea wall demonstrates this to good effect and the resulting wedgy peaks break all down the beach. The smoother and more vertical the seawall the better and it needs to be at just the right angle [about 25 degrees off perpendicular to the swell line. This effect already works at sand tracks except that the sea wall is too short and absorbs rather than reflects the wave energy, because it is large limestone boulders. Definitely this is a fact worth considering should any new marinas of seawalls be planned for Perth's wave starved shore.

Whether the proposal should happen or not I am dissappointed that kitesurfers cannot voice their concerns at the loss of an existing metropolitan break and choose to believe instead that the developers will be benevolent and create a reef break. It bodes poorly for the future of Metro surf if the only people who value it, cannot see they are been hoodwinked.

The premier may have voiced dissent but he is only an elected official whose time will soon be up, so even if he dug his heels in the developers would just wait their oppurtunity. Wake up guys and see that they success of Port Coogee will mean that the entire metropolitan shoreline is been viewed as real estate by developers as we speak. Take note that Stephen Lee's accession to Mayor of Coogee was guaranteed by the developers funding of his election camapign.

California lost one of its premier surf breaks Dana point to a marina in the 50s, but Surfrider foundation and other action groups are much more on it now, recently blocking a development proposal at Trestles.

This is WA though and I think in terms of environmental awareness we are the california of 50 years ago.

With sea levels rising I wouldnt worry about all this too much, the suckers buying this heap of sand will see it all washed away in about 20 years time.
along with a whole heap of coast line
Predicted land under is Freo , Mandura, Geraldton, and there wont be any tax mony to shore up all those low lying places like Lano etc
Insurance companies have allready outlined a totaly new coast line and are aware of hard times to come, but most of us only think about 6 months in advance.

Alan Carpenter recons it wont get the go ahead in any case

Ray

have you seen the poll taken from the west website

What do you think of the $10b Fremantle island plan?

68% Finally, an insightful plan to house the city's exploding population.

32% An environmental nightmare and an insult to Fremantle's unique fabric.


maybe it has more support than we think

No need to fly off the handle, much less indulge in personal attacks. The proposal is definitely risky in terms of coastal environments but lets look at it objectively.

A couple of points to even this debate out a little, and perhaps inject a little objectivity:

Sorry Kitehard, Perth is not about "lifestyle in the outdoors". It is about living in the suburbs - perhaps the most wasteful mode of city life. As a result, the Perth coastal plain is an ecological wasteland. Not quite the rugged wilderness you suggest.

To follow on from Shmoo's point - what is the alternative for the residents of the new development? Suburbia? At least these residents will be close to public transport, to their recreation areas and in efficient, high density housing. Where do you live? Are you close to work and your favourite break? Or do you drive there, alone in your car, like most WA'ns.

$100m for 325 ha - that's not cheap. Does anyone have figures on the cost of purchasing and rehabilitating a coastal brownfield site?

Greed? Fast bucks? Are you saying that you don't want to make any money? Real estate and development is as valid a method of making cash as any and it can be done ethically or not. Each proposal must be judged on its merits. If these developers are promoting a more sustainable lifestyle than the current Perth standard then that is an improvement.

Obviously the above must be weighed up against the cost. The effects of alterations to coastal environments are notoriously difficult to predict, from wind, ocean current and sand transport to pollution from construction and ongoing operations.

Nonetheless, a less emotional response is going to be more productive (as usual). Cheers to Schmoo for his attempt at sparking one.

Wait until they build the sea wall ( which they will have to do first ) then find a local indigenous person ( shouldnt be too hard in Perth) to claim that the beach was a traditional ceremonial location with great cultural significance. Pay the bloke $500 bucks for his trouble, help him get some legal aid and the whole thing will be tied up in court for 3-7 years meanwhile you have an awesome flatwater spot to use and if it never goes ahead it will be there forever.

sweeet