Freo's View


Posted in city of fremantle, development, fremantle ports by freoview on April 9, 2016



There is an interesting report by Kent Acott in the weekend West Australian today about the City of Fremantle’s plans for Victoria Quay, which the consultants call South Quay.

The report by MacroPlan Demasi for the City of Fremantle is interesting because it basically is nothing new and the plans ‘revealed’ have been debated for quite some time in Fremantle.

The report wants waterfront homes and a cruise ship terminal of international standards and claims it could make the State Government $ 946 millions over twenty years.

Fremantle Mayor Brad Pettitt told the West Australian that this could be a special project for the W.A. bicentennial celebrations in 2029.

During the Victoria Quay development community consultations the idea of a convention centre, entertainment area, retail, office space, etc. all came up, so I see no need to again pay an external consultant fees for this and reinvent the wheel. With the present buffer zones in place residential or hotel development along Victoria Quay is not possible.

There are extensive plans by Fremantle Ports for Victoria Quay designed after very good community consultation by Fremantle based architects CODA. This involved stakeholders such as the City of Fremantle, Public Transport Authority, Chamber of Commerce, etc, so why the COF needed another report is hard to understand. I wonder if we will be told how much the report cost Fremantle ratepayers.

Roel Loopers

14 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Jon said, on April 11, 2016 at 11:35 pm

    Jayne from what I have seen, read on this blog and others, it seems quite clear your local council really doesn’t give a damn my dear about, what you and other concern citizens think unless it suit their particular direction.


  2. freoview said, on April 11, 2016 at 12:11 pm

    Agreed Jayne! I would not like to see highrise scattered all along, so-called South Quay, but I don’t mind some great architecture up to five stories in some spots there. I don’t believe highrise is suitable to inner city Fremantle and there is no need for it as there are plenty of locations on the periphery that could do with decent development and some medium rise.

    No trees whatsoever for passengers from cruiseships who walk to the train station.

    Modernising Fremantle has to be done with extreme care and restraint as it will negatively impact on the heritage beauty of our city that attracts and delights tourists who come here.



  3. Jayne said, on April 11, 2016 at 12:04 pm

    Who exactly wants the harbour turned into dozens of big apartment blocks? Every time there has been a request for community input on the future of Fremantle, what have the people wanted? It wasn’t tall buildings, it wasnt a quadrupling of the population nor big bland shopping centres. It was a safer, cleaner city and more shady trees. Simple.

    With our city having a grimy image and one of the lowest levels of tree canopy in Australia, it is more than a reasonable request. Providing these will encourage more people to walk from the cruise ships to the town, from North Freo to the town and to Port Beach, from South Beach to the Esplanade, and along South Terrace. I’d like to see the mayor put as much time and money into making Freo suitable for walkers as he does for bike riders. Pedestrians are more likely to stop and shop, of far greater numbers and of all ages and abilities.

    Who wants to see their Fremantle turned into a high density high rise metropolis, what benefit is in that for residents? What lifestyle will we sacrifice so property developers can make millions and the council has a larger empire to reign over? Developing the city centre into flash new council offices, is that the best way to spend $50 million dollars? All these big plans remind me of the saying “more is less”. For my money, I would rather see all that effort go into the beautification of the charming character filled city we have now and that could easily begin today, by planting shade trees along our walkways and streets, by removing graffiti, posters and rubbish, by installing CCTV, security lighting and signage and providing basic amenities like water fountains, clean toilets and changerooms. How about the council focus on its majority of residents’ wants, not its own glorification?


  4. Martin said, on April 11, 2016 at 9:26 am

    If there is plenty of space at the current port, as you state, what is the true driver for building a new port at Kwinana? Ship size has no impact on the efficiency of land use away from the immediate wharf area.


  5. Mark said, on April 11, 2016 at 9:04 am

    Roel I thought the city could have Grafitti removed all they have to do is ask the owner for permission to remove it?
    But has any of this Grafitti been deemed by the council to have artistic merit, if so its a bit hard to stop something, while encouraging it


  6. freoview said, on April 11, 2016 at 7:05 am

    The Passenger Terminal is the responsibility of Fremantle Ports, not the Vit of Fremantle, but I agree that it looks pretty awfu when ships arrive and hundreds of mostly elderly people are not offered adequate shade and seats to wait for busses, taxis, etc.

    The buildings eyesore at Beach Street is a disgrace and it is a shame that local government appears to be powerless to do anything about it and property owners can keep neglecting their buildings and disgrace the appearnace of our city. There should be State laws introduced that would enable local government to take possession of derelict buildings, or maintain them with the costs charged to the owners.



  7. Johnny said, on April 10, 2016 at 10:49 pm

    Seems a bit strange that a council who has had cruise ships coming to its port , the hub for its region, handles cruise ships so poorly.
    From comments, experience and reports the city struggles to offer basic attractions to keep people in the local area, not to mention on a hot day basics like shade and water offerings are worse than most 1/3 world countries experiences, in a disembarkation and embarkation.
    Their grand plan is impressive perhaps they should work on a few basics of cruise port hospitality before they get carried away with themselves. You know the cart before the horse scenario.
    Its has such potential but so poorly loved the local ambiance can be quite confronting the vandalism looks terrible and sends such a poor message to new visitors.
    The government local, or bigger should really try to clean the place up, 1st impressions are so critical in the hospitality business.
    Sadly one of the first and last things we saw in the building in Fremantle other than the actual port were of vandalized buildings.
    Who could possibly think this is an attractive way to present your city, really show’s a basic lack of care, respect or responsibility.
    Makes the plan mentioned quite laughable.


  8. Lionel said, on April 10, 2016 at 5:19 pm

    Automated ports are not a new thing:


  9. freoview said, on April 9, 2016 at 9:57 pm

    Thanks Brad.

    I remember that Henty Farrar and I, when still in charge of the Fremantle Society, suggested to you to get a consultant report done to see what impact the sale of the port would have on the City of Fremantle. While I don’t mind the report just released I would have liked to also see an impact assessment should the port be sold/leased for 49 years as planned by the Barnett government.

    My main problem is the residential factor of the report as it would require changes in attitude and operation at Fremantle Ports and the adjustment of the present buffer zones. I believe not developing Victoria Quay/South Quay would be an opportunity lost for the State and definitely for Fremantle, but I am realistic enough to believe this will only happen in not less than ten years from now and not in the immediate future that Fremantle Council should prioritise and deal with, e.g what are the COF alternative plans for Kings Square, the major project for the economic recovery of our city?



  10. Roel
    This report is very different to the work the Freo Ports/CODA did as it is for the whole of the South side of the port – not jut Victoria Quay. It is also an economic analysis of the costs (not planning document as the other report was) and benefits to the government. What is shows is that thinking about this differently would be both good for Fremantle’s connections to the water AND the State Government’s bottom line.
    It was great value too at around $11k. This means it was only high level and further more detailed anaysis still needs to be done.
    cheers, Brad


  11. freoishome said, on April 9, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    If you look at other modern container ports they don’t need to be anything like as large. With deeper draft the ships will much larger, and hence a lot less in number of visits. So instead of two + berthed at a time, one will be the norm, but with 4 cranes per berth. So the scale of the actual new berthing and hence its hinterland could actually be a lot less than the current port. But the whole thing could be far better organised. Hence the actual engineering and build won’t be such a massive task, hence would take a lot less time.
    What is more likely to take additional time is siting and building 2-3 extra transport hubs and their freight links to the existing freight rail, and on to the new port.
    CSIRO tells us AI and robotisation will replace 40% of current job types within 20 years. Moving containers is akin to babies playing with bricks, it isn’t complex and seems an ideal candidate for robots, with AI managing the logistics. Robotic freight trains seems far less scary to me than 000’s of robotic HGVs.
    We just need to start imagining, visioning a new future. Doing it more often and spreading the word.


  12. freoview said, on April 9, 2016 at 3:00 pm

    There is no doubt for me that Victoria Quay will be developed in the future, maybe five years away. The Passenger Terminal is something Fremantle Ports does not seem to want to move on. It was suggested it ould be moved closer to B Shed and the train station, but is not part of the planning.

    When the outer harbour opens in 10-15 years from now there will be even more space, but in the meantime live stock should be moved to Kwinana if there is no government willing to stop the trade.



  13. freoishome said, on April 9, 2016 at 2:21 pm

    The obvious point is that the non port ops land would be part of the CoF, not FPA. So the control, zoning, planning and rates would be part of CoF.
    Combine that with a migration of the container port to Kwinana, and there might be a case for renegotiating the buffer zone, hence giving CoF even greater opportunities..
    Have you noticed how much better North Quay looks now all the empty containers have gone, how large the unused land is. It demonstrates my proposal for the Kwinana Port to be based on freight rail transporting 90% of containers to transport hubs like Kewdale, where container storage, logistics, break bulk, etc would be based, thus reducing the amount of prime coastal real estate dedicated to their storage.
    If CoF can’t increase its size by being granted suburbs from other surrounding Councils, then the only other way for CoF to do what everyone wants, ie, a larger rates base, it to take over land currently managed by State and Federal Gov’t Depts.


  14. bigjulie said, on April 9, 2016 at 11:09 am

    It would be better buck for the money to run an international design competition. New ideas and visions from the world’s best young and keen minds.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: