Has anyone registered what the propose new 350 hectares mega -marina housing island at port beach would do to one of Perths most treasured winter wavesailing locations [as detailed in last weeks West Australian]?http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=75806
With the proposed high rises on the Northern end the wind shadow would extend not just to Port beach but all the way to Dutch Inn. The deal has been sweetened for surfers with promises of another artificial reef....yeah right. Sandtracks will soon be a memory. Ironically some real estate guy will probably call some street 'sandtracks street' so nice does it sound, and it will soon be filled with penthouses for the mega-rich and mooring for their gin palaces[that dont surf, but hey its nice to look at the ocean].
Apparently the sea now has a FOR SALE sign on it at least the state government believes it has that right and the GREEDY developers have just discovered real estate gold...... 'Free land' in the Western Suburbs.
You're a bit late.
And has the Govt now said yes.... last I heard the Prem said no 
FMD! sounds like a great idea, why don't they also build a huge bridge to Rottnest and wreck that with ugly harbours and bland, repetative, characterless, houses aswell....
hmmmmmm roadbridge to rotto, now we're talkin, no need to travel north
Slavey,
I am gutted that you [of the quick wit and sensitive bulls--t meter, as demontrated by the dry wit of previous posts] 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.
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 surfers 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. California saw 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.
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,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
The Dutch are proposing something similar, albeit larger:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-501057/The-Netherlands-plan-make-mark-bizarre-scheme-tulip-island.html
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 build 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 tha 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].
Couldn't agree less Niall - name a great human achievement by cynics like you.
The whole thing sounds very cool to me. Yes, there might be a wind shadow, and I'm as keen a windsurfer as anyone, but is there really a shortage of coastal windsurfing spots in Perth?? This thing might give us a great new spot with good facilities and more. Lawn, toilets, showers, a shop or two, maybe an artificial reef all built another km or so west where it's windier - sounds better than Leighton.
Seriously, Port Beach is not exactly a pristine natural ecosystem that must be preserved as a World Heritage Area for the enjoyment of future generations...is it?
Why don't we consider how we might actually benefit before dismissing the greedy capitalist b**tards who keep building things.
Doesnt Nialls have a house on the water front at leighton, and doesnt he kite at scarborough.
eyez took a hike up port beach mountin today for a chill/ az eyez done many timez.[top of da world view of da indianz ocean]after the recent release of the proposed developments, eyez wondered what this pile of dirt and rubble was there for ,it kinda makes sense when ya at da top / but this stockpile mountin of rubble azbin on da agenda for some time,they are ready to roll iff they get da nod. go to the top and take a look....peace and love to da eye and plenty of stay indoorz coz its rough outsie,,,iree
