Sensational-Adelaide.com

champsman wrote:
I'm just spitballing here guys, but I think toby might have been kidding

hehehe you might be right on the spitball there of course it wouldn't work now (where would that fit into water restrictions?) but it's still a cool idea. would be our own little venice with bogans rowing gondolas and serenading with chisel songs.

apologies if this forum is too serious for this kind of off-hand comment - i'm learnding

Thats ok Ralph....heheh

You'd be surprised how little it takes to make me happy, HGIH. (Think Port Footy Club/s, beer, car, girl...)

As to the poor old Port, I noticed something about the development the other day.

There are now 585 marina berths, likely to be more or less full of power boats rather than yachts (samller power boats will fit under the opening bridges when the bridges are closed). However, with the likely closure of the remaing slipway (Searles) there will be no readily accessible slip, hard standing, fuel berth or mechanical repair facility for the hundreds of craft in the inner harbour.

If you can't start your boat because the gearbox is stuck, or your prop shaft is leaking, or if you just need fuel, etc the only solution will be to tow your boat around 5kms downriver to Theodore's boat yard or to the new Marina Adelaide. Expensive and time -wasting comapred with a slip in the inner harbour.

I wonder if this has crossed anyone's mind?

stumpjumper wrote: If you can't start your boat because the gearbox is stuck, or your prop shaft is leaking, or if you just need fuel, etc the only solution will be to tow your boat around 5kms downriver to Theodore's boat yard or to the new Marina Adelaide. Expensive and time -wasting comapred with a slip in the inner harbour.

I wonder if this has crossed anyone's mind?

someone please tell us this is not the case. unfortunately I would not be surprised if this is the case because of the lack of thought that appears to go into so many SA developments. it always seems the idea is good, but the planning lacks something - like a complete vision!! as if this idea (and others in the past) has been put forward by a group that have a seriously vested interest (ie: the developers) and then "approved" by local/state government on the basis of immediate benefits to those concerned ($$$ in revenue/rates/sponsorship/lunches/whatever), and never with a long-term vision of the full use and lifespan of the project and it's surrounds.

now i'm no development or urban planning professional so shoot me down if i'm wrong - but who is looking out for the population? why won't someone think of the children?

toby1 I haven't seen a decent model or drawing of the full Port redevelopment for a while, so like you I hope I've missed something.

However, I keep thinking of the minor fiasco at Holdfast Shores, where the developers assumed that the marina would be full of little yachts as per the brochure, and the further assumption was that little yachts have diesel engines (most do, in fact).

No-one seemed to count on the likes of George Polites, for example, and his giant petrol cruiser, or the dozens of other sporty petrol boats.

The problem was that the design provided for only a diesel 'bowser' to refuel the boats. It's still there, near the end of the original building, the name of which I can't remember.

Petrol is more volatile than diesel, and different regulations apply about its proximity to other land uses etc. So someone (I think the govt, but not sure) had to build a new fuelling wharf at the proper distance from everything, to allow for refuelling with petrol. It cost about $300,000, I heard.

Confirmed by phone yesterday from Newport Quays: There is unlikely to be a fuel point for boats in the inner harbour and there will be definitely be no slip, marine shop or mechanical repair facility in the inner harbour.

I was advised that if a boat at one of the 585 marina berths needs mechanical repair, for example it won't start, or needs fuel, there will be facilities just around the corner at Snowden's Beach.

I suppose it dfepends on what you mean by jsut around the corner. It will be 5 kms away. In the worst case, with say a 2kmh tide against you and a northerly head wind of 25kmh, it could be a long tow, once you've found yourself another boat owner prepared to tow you.

Hardly ideal, but it probably hasn't stopped any deals yet. Why supply more than the bare minimum needed to sell the units?

As to Hart's Mill, +all that Newport Quays could tell me was that any representation of buildign heights or proximities around Hart's Mill to date have been purely artists' ijmpressions. No planning whatsoever has been done for that aera, and planning will not commence for another 7-8 years.

The spokeswoman seemed extremely defensive on the matter of Hart's Mill. It will be interesting to see what happens there.

stumpjumper: I really don't think it matters. If anything, residents would probably complain about a workshop on their doorstep.

Don't most of the people that have boats in these marinas have them purely as show anyway?

Stumpjumper, leaving planning for another 7-8 years around Harts Mill is particularly long isnt it? wouldnt a majority of the Port Redevelopment be completed by then? I remember hearing the project had a 10-12 year lifespan (correct me if im wrong)

I agree, Cruise Control. I don't believe the guys behind Newport Quays would let planning drift for so long. in other words, they're lying.

I also suspect that they are very wary of what might be a developing groundswell for imaginative conservation of Hart's Mill, so they are giving no-one any information they might hang their hat on - eg how many storeys adjacent, what is to happen to the mill, what is the ground plan etc, even if they such infomration exists. Lying by omission, in other words.

Foley's office gives out the same advice (or lies) as almost word for word, incidentally. No surprise there.

As to the marina situation, I think the boat owning residents may find the non-existing arrangements made for the care of their boats by Newport Quays very inconvenient to say the least. Newport Quays doesn't care. The marina berths were an addon tehy requested after the project had been approved - 'we've found that we can't make money without them!' The construction of the berths was of course largely funded by the taxpayer.

Did it not occur to our super-smart albeit barely-under-control Treasurer and gun negotiator Foley that this marina berth requested after the event ploy might just have been in the minds of the developers all along?

So Newport Quays adds, what, $60,000 to the price of each unit with a berth (a windfall profit underwritten by the SA taxpayer) and makes even more money.

Newport Quays must be laughing (at our expense) all the way to the bank, and I reckon anyone running a mobile mechanical repair and fuel service to the site would do well.

Keep ducking and weaving...

Stumpjumper

Confirmed with Newport Quays rep yesterday. There will be no fuel wharf in the inner harbour for the 585 marina berths there. The rep suggested that if a boat was out of fuel (which was unlikely, she suggested) then it wasn't far to drive to a service station to pick some up, then to go to Marina Adelaide where both pertol and diesel would be available.

It was also confirmed that there would be no short-term accommodation such as a hotel or whatever in the proposed development, but there would be apartments available for short term rental.

Sure the project is alright. But there are so many flaws, more and more visible each time something new is mentioned of it.

A $1.2 billion dollar investment, and no hotels? I'm sorry, but to me I would have expected at least 2 or 3 hotels around.

Don't get me started on their failure to protect heritage in this area. I'm not all NIMBY, but they have just completely disgraced the area with no respect to heritage - Hart's Mill a big example. If anything, this should be surrounded by open space, fronting the riverside - where it is visible for all to see its wonderful character and history. Not covered up by 6 floor apartment blocks.

Theres a severe lack of tourist amenities, cafes, resturants, hell who cares if either aren't there, the Fish Markets need a good upgrade which would attract many more people.

And there seems to be little interest in commercial development. All these new homes, and no offices or shops. Its going to turn into one of those day-time dead neighborhoods, which if you want a really good example of - go to Hallet Cove. Its all snore.

Stumpjumper, I am amazed that a person supposedly as well informed as yourself, would promote conspiracy theories (completely unfounded) regarding Hart's Mill. It may be worthwile for you to analyze the following image to calm your fears.



It is clear that the Hart's Mill building will not be surrounded by apartment buildings, but further, the Port Adelaide CBD, where the real heritage buildings are, will not be touched by this development. The development is manily focussed on the opposite bank of the Port River.

Will, I wish I had your confidence in artists' impressions. I have seen dwgs on the LMC site which are supposedly current, and they show Hart's Mill surrounded by three level buildings (3 1/2 levels if they have semi-underground parking). The lower half, at least of Hart's Mill would then be surrounded, except for 'view corridors' to the NE and the NW . The same site shows a possible colonisation of the 'back 1/5th' of the water in No 1 Dock with three level buildings, and many other variations. Then again, Newport Quays told me a few days ago that 'nothing around Hart's Mill has been designed'. Either that statement is true, or they do have designs but want to keep their options open. I suspect the latter, and not because of any conspiracy theory. Developers like to keep their plans fairly close. they want buyers to buy now, not wait until something better comes along.

For what it's worth, I am not against the redevelopment of the Port. I'm just personally not happy with what seem to me to be the many lost opportunities in the present setup.

If it were all up to me, and if there weren't many constraints...

I'd take all industry off Lefevre Peninsula, which I see as prime residential land - both seaward and river sides of it. I'd dredge a channel due east past the northern tip of the Lefevre Peninsula and dig a series of inland docks, turning basins etc around the unused and non-mangrove area to the west of the Salisbury Highway/Port Wakefield Rd intersection.

By doing this, the heavy rail and road freight would not have to access the peninsula at all. There would be easy connections for road and rail freight to the east, north and west. It would take pressure off the freight route through the suburbs and east of the CBD onto the South East Freeway. All heavy traffic could go 'around the top' and miss the suburbs altogether.

Moreover, there's no room for expansion on the Lefevre Peninsula. Once the eastern (ie river) coastline is built out by industry, what then? Dig inland pools in the peninsula to accommodate more industry? Of course not. They'll have to move east, to the dry swamp between the Port and the Port Wakefield Road. Just what I 'm suggesting above. So it will have to hapopen anyway, why not bite the bullet and start now?

OK, cost is huge, but once dredged only the approaches would need much maintenance dredging. The inland pools, like Rotterdam, would tend to stay deep, and there is a huge amount of room for expansion over there.

Both sides of the Lefevre Peninsula could be then be developed for housing. The income from the sale of all those waterfront blocks would help subsidise the creation of the inland shipways. No more need for a third river crossing, no more need for trucks to go through the old port centre. You could carve more waterways in the sandy Lefevre Peninsula to amke more expensive waterfront blocks, maybe even going through to the sea. The benefits to the whole city and state would be enormous.

Ah, dreams.

My problem is that even if something like the above isn't feasible, we are still settling for a far worse result than we should. That this state of affairs is a function of what I consider to be a fairly ordinary government in league with bottom-line driven developers who don't have to live with the results of their work is not a conspiracy theory, it's just a point of view. I would hate to think it was a fact. That wold mean that the conspiracy is between the govt and the developers, and against the interests of the people.

This was a double post. I'm trying to get rid of the second copy.