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.

Cajj77 said...

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

Huh ?
It's odd that you would group Mandurah with places like Darling Harbour and Dubai ?
lol.
But anyway,
WA has lots of high-rise buildings.
Have you checked out Perth CBD and South Perth foreshore lately ??
For some reason it's acceptable to build high-rises on the shores of the beautiful Swan River....
but it's sinful to build high-rises on the shores of the Indian Ocean.
High-rise development is just a case of return-on-investment.
If the land is so valuable that low-rise is non-profitable....
then you have to build UP ^
Simple economics.
RE: skyscrapers on the beaches
WA (Perth region) will never be like the Gold Coast.....
it just hasn't got the climate.
Right now it's boardshort weather on the Goldie.

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!

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.

"Favourite Spots: Millionaires [artificial reef, Cottesloe]"

Any effect on the environment with this one?

niall barrett said...


If you have noticed the city [including especially the port area] is full of unused 'brown field' sites. The only problem is Mr Sarich and his buddies would have to pay Land corp a lot of money for those and rehabilitate them extensively. Now we know that the ocean floor it seems is up for lease by the state goverment, why not the river??..... yes lets fill that all in to, just think of the real estate.

If this gets with even a hint of reality, I think every citizen in Perth should be marching on Parliament .

Not saying I agree with the idea mate, but perhaps you need to look at some photos of the perth foreshore 100 years ago. All those green parks, riverside drive and the convention centre all sit on what used to be the river.

D

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?

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.

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.

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 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.