Objection to proposed new suburb and name New Port

Transcription

1 P. M. Kentish Surveyor General Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure South Australia Government GPO Box 1354 Adelaide 5001 Objection to proposed new suburb and name New Port I oppose the name New Port for parts of Birkenhead, Glanville, Ethelton and Semaphore Park. Figure 1 shows the areas identified in the map published in the Surveyor General's Notice. 1 1 Renaming localities to contrived names is contrary to successful practice elsewhere Successful redevelopments of other ports have not required new names to be invented. The redevelopment of the Port of Melbourne for housing was simply named Port Melbourne. Figure 1: Areas shown in Notice The redevelopment of the London docks is named the London Docklands. The localities within the Docklands retain their original names of Canary Wharf, St Katherine Docks, London Docks, Regent's Canal Dock, Surrey Commercial Docks, West India Docks, East India Docks, and Royal Docks. Cannery Row was made internationally notorious by John Steinbeck's book of the same name. Yet, the redevelopment of this waterfront in the port of Monterey, California did not require a change of name. In fact, when I visited Cannery Row in February 2007 this upscale area of lodging, shopping and dining was exploiting its historical character. This is best shown by the 1 Notice of intention to alter suburb boundaries and assign a new suburb name, p83, The Advertiser,

2 official renaming of Ocean View Avenue to Cannery Row, the street's informal name though the years. The proposed renaming of the port areas A, B, C and D to a contrived name is at odds with the successful experience of the London Docklands and Cannery Row. Moving away from ports, most redevelopments on Manhattan Island, New York have retained the original name of the locality. The Meatpacking District and the Chelsea Garment District are now home to some of the world's most famous restaurants and nightclubs. At some time all of these Manhattan landmarks have had major redevelopments without a change of name: Greenwich Village, Chinatown, Harlem, Central Park, Battery Park, Madison Square Garden, Broadway, Times Square. If the name had changed with each redevelopment it is unlikely that these names would have ever gained iconic status. 2 Proposed suburb is unworkable for residents 2.1 Proposed suburb has unworkable shape The proposed suburb has an odd shape not entirely apparent from the advertised map: it is a twisted ribbon two kilometres long but only 10 to 200 metres wide. 2 Such an unusual shape is unworkable. Imagine trying to find a street in such a suburb. The Surveyor General has been misled by the map. On the ground the Port River cannot be seen behind the Newport Quays development, so the position of the proposed suburb along the banks of the River is not at all clear. This is especially so as the River makes a 90 turn in the centre of the proposed suburb. This isn't a problem with the existing names: the suburb on one side of the turn is Birkenhead and the suburb on the other side of the turn is Glanville. 2 Measurements taken using the ruler in Google Earth against its satellite photography. In contrast to my measured minimum of 10m across ground, the advertised map has a misleading minimum width of 115m since that map does not follow the banks of the Port River in area A (Birkenhead). 2

3 2.2 Proposed suburb is too long Two kilometres is roughly double the size of the adjacent suburbs. It is a brisk thirty minute walk from Birkenhead Bridge to the corner of Causeway and Bower Roads. 2.3 Proposed suburb is far too narrow Two hundred metres wide at its widest point; ten metres wide at its narrowest point, and that's being generous. Just to state the numbers is to show their ridiculousness. 3 Proposed suburb promotes confusion 3.1 Existing names are not confusing Figure 2: Google Earth image annotated to The demarcation between area B show existing TransAdelaide stations and (Glanville) and area C (Ethelton) proposed "New Port" suburb. happens at the Jervois Bridge. Since nothing much can be constructed under the bridge, there is no confusion between Ethelton and Glanville. The demarcation between area A (Birkenhead) and area B (Glanville) is also clear on the ground. The suburb changes as you make the bend in the river (or turn from Causeway Road into Semaphore Road). The desirability of a change in suburb name at the bend in the Port River is argued above. 3.2 New name is confusing Figure 2 shows that the existing TransAdelaide stations Glanville Interchange and Ethelton Station will both be in the proposed suburb New Port. 3

4 Again, the long length of the suburb leaves much opportunity for confusion in locating homes and businesses. For example, getting off the bus at the first stop in the proposed New Port is a bad mistake. You may have gotten off seven stops too early. The proposed suburb name is easily confused with a real estate development and sales business trading as Newport Quays which is operating in areas A, B, C and D. 4 Proposed suburb ignores history 4.1 New Port historically refers to another locality The name New Port has been Figure 3: Plan of the New and Old Ports, previously used for a differing suburb of the Port Adelaide region. As Figure 3 shows, the historical New Port is the current Port Adelaide. Ironically, parts of this suburb is on the opposite bank of the Port River from the proposed New Port. 3 When areas B and C were previously used for housing and business they were known as Port Bridge. As suburbia grew on the western side of Jervois Bridge, this was felt to be confusing enough for Port Bridge to be split into Glanville and Ethelton. I ask the Surveyor General to learn the lesson of history. 5 Process and politics 5.1 Justification not supplied Justification for renaming areas A, B, C and D is not provided. Even though a justification for excising area E is supplied. 3 Figure 3 is detail from Old and New Ports 1840 (from 100 Years of Harbor Development at Port Adelaide), p50, Couper Smartt & Courtney, Port Adelaide. Tales from a Commodious Harbour, Friends of the South Australian Maritime Museum,

5 Without knowing the Surveyor General's motivation in proposing this suburb it is difficult for the public to best explain its views to the Surveyor General. 5.2 Bizarre process The local newspaper claims South Australian minister Kevin Foley thought of the name to solve a dispute between the owners of the Newport Quays development and the Port Adelaide Enfield Council. 4 I object to this process for naming a suburb. Although this process is an improvement on the Surveyor Generals' behaviour in the colonial era, where naming a suburb after a daughter was common, a hasty political compromise with a real estate development company does not even begin to approach a reasonable way to name a suburb. 5.3 Legibility The map printed with the advertisement is illegible. This appears to be a problem with the quality of the Surveyor General's map, not with the quality of The Advertiser's printing. 5.4 Public consultation a farce Figure 4 shows a sign installed by the Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure during the public consultation period. The colour coding of the sign indicates that Newport Quays is a suburb; not an attraction or a locality. The Surveyor General is a member of that Department. Has a decision already been taken? Is the Newport Quays business being given extraordinary government support? Is the Department too easily spending my taxes on signs which will need to be altered? Figure 4: Commercial Road, Port Adelaide, Conclusion No suburb surveyed and named in modern times should be so inconvenient for its residents. 4 Westthorp, New Port shock, p5, Portside Messenger,

6 I encourage the Surveyor General to reject the proposed name in favour of a name arising from a process who's goal is the welfare of the residents of the area. The process used to define the current proposed suburb boundaries and name does not seem to have considered the welfare of the suburb's residents, but rather the desires of the real estate trade. The welfare of the residents is best served by incorporating area A into Birkenhead, incorporating area B into Glanville, and incorporating areas C and D into Ethelton. Glen Turner 44 Ansell Street Semaphore