White Bay Terminal could be a white elephant
- Author:
- Pam Walker
- Posted:
- Wednesday, 17 June 2009
The essence of urban planning is clear-sighted estimation of the future, coordination and a holistic approach. Alas, that isn’t the forte of the NSW Government whose ‘planning’ is a cross between pandering to the developers and engineering firms that donate to the major parties, obsessive secrecy, hostility to the public and just plain muddle.
The standard operating procedure is known professionally as DAD – ‘Decide, Announce, Defend’, and Planning Minister Kristina Keneally’s approach to the White Bay issue is a classic of the genre.
First, in the absence of a coherent master plan, she announces that a marine fuels facility will go ahead; then she promises there will be some sort of public consultation, some time.
But let’s apply a little logic to the passenger terminal problem.
First step: look to the future. Peak oil is already hitting air travel harder than any other industry and this will only get worse (have you noticed that the merest hint of economic stabilisation has sent oil prices rocketing up again?). The expensive energy future may well dictate a return to ocean travel. If that is the case, we are looking at a far more serious issue than cruise ship holidays. Within a decade, those liners may end up running real passenger services.
Next, an ugly fact: of the 50-odd large cruise ships currently under construction in the world, none will fit under the Harbour Bridge. Unless the Federal Government moves to influence the shipbuilders with a plea for lower ships, a White Bay terminal will end up as a white elephant when the current generation of ships go out of service.
If the height problem could be solved, Barangaroo would be a better place for the terminal, but the government has it pegged for another of its silly fantasies – the Pacific hub of Global Finance. Why this isn’t compatible with a passenger terminal is never explained.
The one remaining option east of the Harbour Bridge (short of evicting the Navy from Garden Island) would be the historic Finger Wharf at Woolloomooloo Bay. This would involve paying bucket-loads of money to the wealthy owners of apartments there (including Russell Crowe and Nicole Kidman), but it may still be the cheapest option by far and it would accommodate up to four liners. Barangaroo and Woolloomooloo Bay should be seriously considered.
- By Gavin Gatenby
June 20th, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
Some good points, particularly the effects of peak oil.
The worst possible outcome for both White Bay and Barangaroo is that they are lost to shipping forever.
Deep water harbours are incredibly rare, and with peak oil approaching (past?), the folly of trucking all out stuff back to Sydney from distant ports like Wollongong will become very clear.
Even though a lot of new cruise boats can’t fit under the Harbour Bridge, at least the Cruise Terminal proposal for White Bay, and the refuelling depot, keeps the harbour alive. And that part of Sydney’s harbour functional for the time when even the dills who are currently making these disastrous decisions, will have to rethink the way we move everything around.
But I bet Kristina Keneally doesn’t even put working harbour on her list of options she will “consult” us about. Certainly Leichhardt Council’s Mayor Jamie Parker has ruled that out, he wants all working class industry (and working class employment) out of Balmain.
Kristina will want to maximise the real estate value – Pyrmont style, and Jamie and his “eco warriors” will want parks and unimpeded water views for their mini Mac-mansions. Verity will just want to keep her seat.
And what will get? A dismal combination of all this, like Blackwattle Bay at Glebe. Where security cameras have to protect the trees from being poisoned and cyclists and walkers trade insults in the pages of the local press. And a waterfront as lifeless and sterile as Lake Burley Griffith.
Surely that’s not what City Hub has in mind too?
August 16th, 2009 @ 10:24 am
The government has in fact put working harbour on the consultation agenda for the Bays Precinct which includes White Bay. I am not aware of anyone including myself who have ruled out working harbour in the area or anyone who is arguing for parks and views alone. It is all about what kind of activity and what impacts. Working harbour has an important place in the Bays Precinct and so does public open space.
The community and Council have asked for a proper planning process where the planning process should proceed the approval of developments such as Baileys and cruise ship terminal.