Winton: Swan treated like sewer

Acclaimed author Tim Winton has taken aim at the management of the Swan River, saying Perth’s greatest gift is being treated like a sewer.

In a piece written for The West Australian, Winton described the health of the Swan and its adjoining wetlands as a scandal, claiming if it were a financial institution or a football team, its board and CEO would be “dragged from their tower on the Terrace” and sacked.

Yesterday Winton, author of the prizewinning 1992 novel Cloudstreet, visited a favourite fishing spot in Mosman Park that he said was polluted so badly at times that litter was piled waist deep.

“The Swan River has given me a lot in my 50 years, and Cloudstreet is one of those things. I guess I feel obliged to repay the debt and speak up on its behalf,” he said. “It’s painful to think of the river my grandchildren will inherit.”

 

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/8143325/author-says-beloved-swan-treated-like-sewer/

Meanwhile on the other side of the globe…

Perth is not the only post-industrial city taking on the challenge of developing its water/riverfront. To start with, here are some recent developments from the USA:

The city of St Louis Missouri hosts a competition here.

Seattle is also running a competition for the foreshore with shortlisted firms presenting their schemes directly to the public here. In a rather unique arrangement– “the winning designer will be selected in part on the strength of their presentation and their response to questions from the public.”

A global sporting franchise, once again, becomes the catalyst for waterfront development – this time in San Francisco.

While, closer to home, Sydney-siders attempt to digest the Barangaroo foreshore development.

Swan Canning Water Quality Improvement Plan

Key findings:
Annually 250 tonnes of nitrogen and 26 tonnes of
phosphorus enter the system. Numerical modelling
was used to quantify nutrient loads by source and
use in the Swan Canning Catchment.
Based on predictive modelling the maximum
acceptable load to the Swan and Canning rivers per
year is 130 tonnes of total nitrogen (TN) and
14 tonnes of total phosphorus (TP).
To meet these objectives the SCWQIP aims to:
• reduce the nitrogen load by 120 tonnes per year
(49%); and
• reduce the phosphorus load by 12 tonnes
per year (46%).
Other key findings of the SCWQIP, based on
predictive modelling, are as follows.
1. The Avon River contributes a large proportion of
the nutrient load (69% TN and 43% TP). While
management of the Avon Catchment is outside
the scope of this SCWQIP, the magnitude of
the nutrient contribution highlights that it is
imperative to reduce this input to improve water
quality in the Swan and Canning rivers.
2. Of the Swan Canning sub-catchments Ellen
Brook contributes the most nutrients with
70 tonnes of nitrogen (28% TN) and 10 tonnes
of phosphorus (39% TP) per year.
3. The main source of phosphorus in the Swan
Canning Catchment is farming activities (33%
TP), predominantly beef cattle grazing in the
Ellen Book sub-catchment.
4. The main source of nitrogen is residential (29%)
and recreational (14%) activity in urban subcatchments,
in particular fertiliser application on
grassed areas and gardens. It is also the second
highest source of phosphorus (22% and 12% TP).
5. Flow from coastal sub-catchments including Ellen
Brook has been equivalent to the Avon River in
recent years. Urban sub-catchments are the main
source of nutrients in summer when agricultural
catchments are not flowing.
6. Septic tanks contribute significant amounts of
nitrogen (18% TN) and phosphorus (8% TP) to
the Swan Canning river system. This percentage
is even higher in some sub-catchments.
7. Increased urbanisation will increase nutrient loads
by 18% TN and 25% TP, due to increased runoff.
8. The effects of climate change, modelled over
a 10-year period on the highest CO2 output,
reduces nutrient load by 15% TN and 31% TP.
Modelled on the lowest CO2 output, the effects
of climate change will reduce phosphorus load
by 5% and the nitrogen load by 3%.

swan_canning_water_quality_improvement_plan_final_dec_2009

Shoe Thrown At Outspoken Property Developer

Ren Zhiqiang encounters thrown shoe while giving speech, claims shoe-thrower isn’t even a house slave

Summary: Afternoon of the 7th, Ren Zhiqiang is at the forum held by the Dalian Real Estate Association and just after stepping on stage, a pair of shoes were thrown at the stage by a member of the audience screaming “Go to hell!”. Ren Zhiqiang laughed and said this treatment is comparable to that of a president’s, even expressing that the shoe-thrower isn’t a “house slave”, but someone who can’t even afford a down payment.

http://www.chinasmack.com/2010/videos/ren-zhiqiang-outspoken-property-developer-shoe-throwing-incident.html

CityVision and the Perth Waterfront

What drives the CityVision plan?
Three key things drive this plan:
– the long-held desire to bring the city and the river together: a good city kisses its river;
– the desire to create an attractive and accessible place on the waters’ edge; and
– the desire to optimize the wonderful setting provided by the river front, nestling at the
foot of Mount Eliza, at the doorstep of the City.
Integrated, not competing: grand, not grandiose
The foreshore development should be a natural extension of the city centre, not an inwardlooking competitor to it. The notion of a critical mass of development at the waterfront is a myth. The waterfront will benefit from office development and apartments in close proximity, but not above.
The waterfront is a great place for a hotel and serviced apartments, great civic buildings like museums or opera houses, and of course, all the things that attract people and make for enjoyment, but major office and apartment buildings will just create congestion without
adding to the buzz of the place.

Click to access Waterfront-CityVision-Plan.pdf

Waterfront-CityVision-Plan

Prince Charles: I defend ordinary people against property developers

Prince’s private secretary claims he opposed modernist design out of duty to make ordinary people’s views heard

“A judge ruled last week that the prince’s campaign against the design of a redevelopment of the Chelsea barracks in London was “unwelcome”. The judgment sparked criticism that Charles had overstepped his constitutional role by secretly lobbying at the highest levels against planning applications he disliked.

Today Sir Michael Peat, the prince’s private secretary, claimed Charles opposed Lord Rogers’ £3bn modernist designs because “it is part of the Prince of Wales’ role and duty to make sure the views of ordinary people that might not otherwise be heard receive some exposure”.

The prince wrote privately to Qatar‘s prime minister voicing his opposition to the plans for apartments on the Qatari-owned land. But far from acting in his own interests against designs, “he was only writing to the Qataris because he was asked to do so [by local residents]”, Peat claimed. The emirate’s state-owned developer scrapped the scheme after Charles had proposed an alternative design by Quinlan Terry, a classical architect he admires.

“For many developers, hearing the views of local residents is very unexpected and unwelcome,” said Peat. “They are there just wanting to make money.”

The claim that Charles is duty-bound to stand up for ordinary people’s interests in disputes with major property developers came as it was announced that the prince earned a record £17.2m last year from the Duchy of Cornwall, a professionally managed £664m property empire run solely to fund his lifestyle which has been criticised for failing to listen to the views of its tenants on new developments.

“It is frustrating to hear he thinks he is on the side of ordinary people against developers, because villagers and the parish council here have sent him dozens of letters over the last few years,” said Jane Giddins, parish council chairwoman at Newton St Loe, a duchy-owned village near Bath, where the duchy has been planning 2,000 new homes on neighbouring fields.

“We have only ever received replies from the Duchy of Cornwall, fobbing us off. People in this village are at best bemused and at worst feel let down by His Royal Highness. No one can understand why he has not been listening.”

Opponents of his interventions believe the prince cannot claim to represent ordinary people because he cannot be held accountable by them.

“Any individual who feels strongly about representing the people should stand for election,” Lord Rogers said last night. “There is a carefully organised democratic system of electing councillors who appoint planning officers and there is a process which allows the public to hold open meetings where they can air their feelings. All of that happened over the four years’ planning process for Chelsea barracks.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/29/prince-charles-planning-property-developers

PEER REVIEW 3 – WATER FRONT PERTH

Perth Waterfront Peer Design Review 3 Summary

The Perth Waterfront Peer Design Review 3 was held on the 23rd October 2009 at the New Esplanade Hotel and was chaired by Steve Woodland, Western Australia’s Government Architect. This report has been produced by the Office of the Government Architect, at the request of Department of Planning, on behalf of the Perth Waterfront Taskforce. Department of Planning are to be commended for returning to the process of Peer Design Review and seeking involvement of high-calibre expertise in assessing the progress of the Waterfront scheme. This city-changing project is of extraordinary
importance to Perth and input from the Peer Review Group is valuable in providing confidence and direction for the next stage of work by the consultants.

THE REST OF THE PEER REVIEW CAN BE FOUND HERE:

http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/Perth%20Waterfront%20Peer%20Design%20Review%203%20Summary.pdf?id=2129

DEPT OF PLANNING FAQ – WATERFRONT PROJECT

Q Who is responsible for the Perth Waterfront project?
A The Department of Planning is the agency responsible for the current design and statutory approval phase. A design consortium headed by Ashton Raggatt McDougall, together with Professor Richard Weller, Roberts Day Group, Hocking Planning and Architecture and Oculus, have been appointed to develop the project concepts.
It is expected that the State Government will be responsible for delivery of some key public realm elements, however will seek early engagement of the private sector to determine the preferred delivery model.

THE REST OF THE FAQ CAN BE FOUND HERE:

http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/Frequently%20asked%20questions.pdf?id=2128

Photo of Perth from Kings Park of Waterfront

From:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/huangjiahui/2901333587/sizes/l/in/photostream/

RESPONSE BY NIGEL WESTBROOK – ARCHITECT, DESIGNER

“Press of 18 February 2008: Following extensive public consultation, the former Melbourne enfants terribles Ashton Raggatt McDougall, with Richard Weller, have won a second competition to propose the future direction of central Perth and its river. Perth, fuelled by the mining boom, is exploding. Vaguely imagined phantasms of a possible city are projected through the media – shades of Greg Lynn, Jean Nouvel – fluid images of a strangely familiar architecture. But architects have a problem with the public. Architecture takes a long time to get right, generations. So why should we encourage such media snatches? In this case, because it is perhaps the best chance for a genuine commitment to an urban proposition that is not merely superficial, but might engage in a productive way with the entrenched and myopic attitudes of inbred locals. There should be no expectation that the provocative and imaginative images of the design team will lead to anything unless the WA Government is prepared to embrace the idea of Perth as a world city.

Behind the images, there is the proposition that the river should be brought back (excavating through the postwar landfill) to the city. We no longer believe in dead sites that depend on an annual (RSL) ritual to enliven them. Behind the images, the urban strategy of bringing the city to the water is sound. But, beyond form, there is an inevitable conclusion. No Australian city can deal with its waterfront without coming to terms with the reality that there needs to be an urban residential population. Without this the outcome will be a tawdry, distinctly Gold-Coast scraping of superficial urban gestures, fuelled by short-term tourism, without substance.”

http://www.architecturemedia.com/aa/aaissue.php?issueid=200805&article=5&typeon=1