This is a start and has some advantages but does not go far enough to improve the water land interface. The advantages are that the T-wharf pontoons put that area of the CBD front and center in the public's mind about the impact the new bridge will have on the Bay Foreshore.
John Holland and others proposes we maintain a 40 year old concrete wharf with no facilities and dangerous piers and append to each side some ill-designed floating pontoons with steel or concrete piles on the outside.
A cruise ship tender will not fit between the piles so the gap between vessel and pontoon is too wide for anyone to step off. Yes, mind the gap.
The on-ramp dominate the pontoons just waiting for some child to crawl under and be trapped as the pontoon moves up with the tide or passing ferry.
The Ministers statement includes “The existing T-wharf will be retained for those who currently require the fixed structure including local businesses and fishing groups.” Who are these local business and which fishing groups? The dive boat operator who has a mooring adjacent to the T-Wharf has been given his matching orders with no opportunity to return. So lets get these vested interest identified and ask why do they and not the FAC have such influence.
If you go to the interactive map (who paid for that extravagance?) Clyde Street will become a dead-end – yes a Cul-de-Sac. There are no on or off access roads from the new bridge like there are now. To get to the current boatramp you have to travel down North Street turn left under the new bridge – and then what? Turn into the reduced parking area and try to turn to back your trailer down the boat ramp. It is possible but exceptionally difficult. Gone is the turning road, preparation area and wash down section. Yes we have gone backwards.
What will happen to an interstate bus wanting to access the foreshore? Turn left into Clyde Street, negotiate a calming mini roundabout and proceeded to the dead end to attempt to turn and exit back past the CBD. Where will these buses park and take on passengers? We don't know because the traffic flow analysis has not been released.
The statement on Friday by the Minister flanked by those with direct interest in the foreshore was a big step backwards for the fishing and boating community. The local business particularly those with access from Clyde Street will have to be asking questions. Why is this major development in the Bay so ordinary and lacks vision and initiative? How will this improve the tourist economy of the Bay? What signature location will get them to stop and not continue southwards?
The FAC put forward many ideas – a viewing platform at the apex of the new bridge, lift towers for improved disability access to the bridge, moving the southern boatramp from under the shadow of the bridge to the west of Lions Park to name a few just on the south side.
This announcement while welcome will now give the community the opportunity to comment and show there concerns about how ordinary and lacking in vision the proposed foreshore is going to become. This is a missed opportunity to revitalize the CBD, make it a hub for tourist to want to come too. How about opening a tourist information Kiosk, a local produce display centre, a starting point for oyster information tours or sail the bay or whale watching expeditions?
That will not happen from this proposed wharf and pontoon. Lets extend the pontoons down stream for 200 m to the Promenade with a break in the middle for kayaks, canoes and smaller vessel to come inside. Make the pontoons wide so people can fish from them and add lights water and other facilities to attract yachts and passing vessels.
The Association submitted a comprehensive document “A Game Changer for the Bay CBD” to the Minister last week highlighting how adding the extended pontoons correctly designed could activate and rejuvenate this area of the CBD. We wait his response. The Shire and community will get the opportunity to comment on the Association’s proposal.
No comments:
Post a Comment