That little grassed area for sitting is gone now, replaced by a long, hot stretch of tarry bitumen (which the last time I checked isn't known for its suitability for sitting on, least of all in summer). Next to it is what can only be described as a dustbowl: stark white, powder-fine dust of the sort you see in Westerns in which the set designer is trying to create an arid atmosphere, where life was savage and only the tough survived. I can never see it without expecting to see a tumbleweed bounce past, kicking up merry little eddies of powdery grit in its wake.
No fathers snuggle up with their little kids there now. Even walking through the area is unpleasant. My nephew was recently riding his trike on the path next to it, when a gust from the sea breeze lifted a white cloud from the ground and blasted it straight into poor Bubba's face. His aunty was called in for some emergency first aid to his eyes, which were full of fine grit, before he could pedal on. Whichever genius decided on that as an appropriate surface for somewhere with coastal winds owes my nephew an apology.
Just how on earth did the City of Fremantle get the Bathers Beach 'upgrade' so very wrong?
On paper, it seems incredible that anyone could think they had the correct ingredients for creating a successful gathering place. There is nothing that suggests that the designers involved in this project considered what people, the actual living and breathing users, would want. No seating, no additional shade, no grass, no shower, no lighting and no bins. A grassed area has been replaced with a black slab. The feature of the place is a dustbowl.
On my visits to the beach since the upgrade, I've noticed that less people are gathering in groups and that the presence of seniors and children is negligible. The vitality has dissipated. It's no wonder, when the place is now so uncomfortable and unattractive.
It doesn't appear to be any connection between the community and the people who designed, planned and implemented this project. Before our very eyes, a brand of 'heritage interpretation' has been imposed onto this formerly pleasant gathering place. I don't have anything against heritage interpretation per se - I think that it is vital that we respect our heritage - but bad design is bad design, whatever title you use.
What's left isn't a place for people. My wife, on seeing the development for the first time, innocently wondered if they'd turned the area into a car park for ISAF.
There's talk of the upgrade being 'fixed' because of the community's reaction. We'll see, shall we? I don't like being cynical, but my faith in the competence of the CoF in placemaking has been severely shaken.
 |
| Car park or gathering place? |
Can u get a 'before' shot?
ReplyDeleteI'll have a look for one in my photo collection, but I'm not sure I have any.
DeleteI soooo agree. Fish and chips on the grass after a swim = perfect. That car park just looks shyte! Great blog. :-)
ReplyDeletewe use to go down there all the time and now....dont even want to! looks like a concrete jungle and they should of gone back to the historical roots....more trees, more grass, more family friendly - like it once was (geez I sound like my grandmother "back in my day" yet I'm only 35 and I have lived in Freo for the majority of those years and this is one thing they have definately got wrong). With the amount of heat Perth gets why would you want to go sit by a hot black tarmac!
ReplyDeleteMichael –There are comments on your blog article that the City of Fremantle believes are misinformed so we would like to clarify these with you and your readers.
ReplyDeletePossibly the most important point is that the works themselves are not complete and the area is currently in the process of being upgraded to include more public amenity facilities – these include grassed areas, lighting, showers, drinking fountains, seating, an extension of the boardwalk and shade structures, in accordance with the plans.
The City will be providing an Old Port Project update very shortly which will detail these although there is more information on stage 2 works on the City’s website if you look under major projects.
We would also like to clarify some other statements made in your blog article:
You state: “On paper, it seems incredible that anyone could think they had the correct ingredients for creating a successful gathering place. There is nothing that suggests that the designers involved in this project considered what people, the actual living and breathing users, would want.”
And also : “It (sic) doesn't appear to be any connection between the community and the people who designed, planned and implemented this project.”
Firstly, it’s important to note that the scope for the project was prepared by the City’s heritage architect planner in consultation with internal stakeholders including the strategic urban designer, transport planner, engineering design coordinator, horticultural officer and landscape architect.
In addition to this, council released a draft plan for four weeks community comment, with a report on submissions brought back to council for consideration before the plan was presented for final adoption.
Copies of the plan were also sent to all precincts and major stakeholders including Fremantle Ports, Heritage Council of Western Australia, Western Australian Transport Authority, Fremantle Maritime Museum and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.
Following the public consultation process, the project’s final brief, which was adopted by both council and funding body, Lotterywest, was to ensure that heritage conservation and interpretation of the area’s history formed an integral part of the area’s upgrading, including improvements of its accessibility across the railway line and its public amenity as an urban beach reflective of Fremantle story and character.
You state: “Before our very eyes, a brand of 'heritage interpretation' has been imposed onto this formerly pleasant gathering place.”
The heritage conservation aspect was something that came across strongly in the public engagement process carried out prior to the adoption of the master plan, with the majority of public submissions outlining heritage conservation and interpretation as the prime concern. In fact, many of the public submissions viewed the development of public amenity infrastructure as being detrimental to the area.
Since the success of Bathers Beach as a result of the ISAF sailing championships held last year, the City acknowledges that there may have been a shift in this viewpoint. The City must honour its existing contractual arrangements with the developers but has nonetheless sought ways of incorporating additional public amenity into the area, even if this means widening the scope of the project following the completion of stage two.
The City intends on putting out a media release shortly regarding the current and future site works at the Old Port Project – hopefully this will provide you with some additional comfort in the restoration activities.
Thanks for the comment, Jason.
DeleteI detected an undercurrent of concern in your thoughts that I was corrupting impressionable ratepayers with my views on the project, but despite the fact that you pointed out a typo in my original post, I want to offer the reassurance that only three people subscribe to my blog, and they're all relatives. (It once jumped to four, but my wife said she accidentally clicked on something twice.)
In all seriousness, I don't really care that the CoF did the bare minimum of community consultation back in 2004 and therefore acts as if it has a mandate for replacing grass with hot bitumen and dust - it's a bad upgrade. It's nothing personal.