One day the Coast Park will be a fantastic continuous 70km alongside Adelaide's beaches.

Parts of it are fantastic, but the gaps reveal either shortfalls in funding or execrable local politics.

One of frustrations at the moment is that cyclists are (supposedly at least) banned going past the Semaphore Palais because they have a Marquee Function Building on the other side of the path to the main building and there is apparent danger to people crossing the path.

Port Adelaide Enfield Council have come up with four options and have asked BISA for their thoughts.  

Briefly; the four options are

1. a new boardwalk through the dunes bypassing both the Palais and the marquee building

2. widen the shared path between the two buildings

3. option 1, except that it would be a build up soil path

4. remove the Marquee Function Building and replace it with an addition to the Palais, with the path moved slightly onto the space formerly occupied by the Marquee Building.

You can see pictures and costings of each by following the link above.

Does anyone who knows the area have any information/opinions to help us?

The link above also allows you to make your comments direct to the Council.

Views: 580

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The lowest cost option would be #1, as long as it is non-slip.  It could be fabricated out of plastic parts and be made relatively smooth too.  I like the FRP grid on top because it comes in large sections, is flat, lets the light through and discourages people walking on it if they are in bare feet or high heels.  Some people don't like walking on it because it is off the ground.

Of course it would be better if the new part was bicycle only and the walkers could go straight through.  Less chance of getting bowled over on a curve or have people stopped on the path.

They could of course roof in the gap between the buildings and create an overpass ramp each side, how good would that be.

The Marquee is on what should be dunes - remove it.

The link to council website states that submissions close on 12-Feb-2017.

The Council informed BISA about it during the past week, so I think comments are still being accepted.

We were also given a feedback form, which I've attached.

I think option 3 is the best. Divert the bicycles along this path but walkers can still go straight. In the meantime , how about allowing cyclists on the current path up until 11am which is when the hotel opens most days? A lot of cyclists go along the path early in the morning when the hotel isn't even open.

Anything but option 2 would be good.  I think I prefer option 4, as the marquee is ugly, and its removal would leave room for outside tables with a sea view.

Best to worst: 3, 1, 4, 2.

2 still has a path between two building and is clearly the worst. (IMO)

4 would presumably entail some sort of compensation to the owners of the Palais.

Then 3 beats 1 because it's cheaper and more natural looking.

Hi Ian & AC Community,

The PortBUG prepared and put in our submission to this consultation process some weeks ago. In fact it’s a process in which we have been deeply involved (to our frustration) for some years!
We supported ‘Option 4’ with some significant qualifications, mainly associated with:
- the paucity of information available in the plans provided
- the need to guard against creation of further problems associated with egress onto the bikeway and the possibility of patrons congregating on the pathway.
We noted that the plans provided show no elevations at all so it is quite difficult to figure out what impact any patron access to and from the new structure (in Option 4) might have on pathway users. We asked (for instance) that there be no mid-point doorway or access to the new structure facing directly on to the bikeway diversion!
We also expressed additional concerns about creating a situation leading to undesirable incremental growth of the building, about who was likely to be called on to pay for the work and the likely impacts on what is one of Port Adelaide’s major historical assets. 
We note that this closure of the pathway to cyclists by WorkplaceSA over the last 4 years or so appears based on the flimsiest evidence of risk. All our searches have been able to find was a record of a cyclist falling against the wall of the Palais when avoiding a tethered dog (or something of a similar nature). We have not been able to find other recorded evidence of incidents of injury or near-miss situations for either staff or pathway users.
We remain unconvinced of need for either closure of this short section of the pathway nor of the need for major reconstruction. We are reticent to see any further major intrusion into the dunes at Semaphore (i.e.; Options 1, 2 or 3) based on such a lack of evidence and given the likelihood that the Port Community may be called on to pay for a large component of the work. We strongly believe that the Palais has a significant moral responsibility to contribute! 
Option 4 minimises (and in fact reduces) intrusion into the dunes and at the very least, gets rid of the separate Palais deck structure (‘the tent’), the construction which caused this situation in the first place!
I'll try to attach PortBUG's submission to this post.
Sam Powrie, Secretary, PortBUG.
Attachments:
I agree with Peter B and prefer option 2. While option 4 might seem like a good idea it is not costed and would clearly be the most expensive and least likely to get up, in my view. The Marquee and decking are actually on the lease area of the Palais and the council note that the Palais operators wish to increase its usage. While many think it ugly, as a detached structure I think it has less impact on the heritage fabric of the Palais building than further attached extensions could have unless lots of money is spent.

You might want to dig up an old Messenger. I recall reading that the Palais assured the Council there would be no loss of amenity to the path when the annex was before Council for approval. So I'm a little surprised that this is the Council's problem to solve, rather than the Palais's issue.

RSS

Support our Sponsors

© 2019   Created by Gus.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service