Categories Melbourne The new bit of Bourke Street Post date Thu 29 March 2012 11 Comments on The new bit of Bourke Street This is the new bit of Bourke Street, in Docklands. I can quite put my finger on why, but I think I prefer the older bit. Share this:TwitterFacebookLinkedInReddit Tags Bourke Street, Docklands, Melbourne 11 Comments on The new bit of Bourke Street By Daniel Bowen Transport blogger / campaigner and spokesperson for the Public Transport Users Association / professional geek. Bunurong land, Melbourne, Australia. Opinions on this blog are all mine. View Archive → ← Dear TTA: You really must put in more Myki readers at Mckinnon station → My blabbering in the TARDIS 11 replies on “The new bit of Bourke Street” Nah, the new bit looks a lot better – got rid of all that pesky public transport. Is it the trams? I bet its the trams. Its the trams isnt it? The trams? But where are the trams? Surely at least there’s a bike lane. Hey – at least there’s a footpath! It looks wide enough to turn into a car lane though, I don’t know why they don’t just do that, it will make the traffic flow that much better. I can’t, for the life of me, think why anyone would have imagined that a new city street needs three lanes. They really did get everything about the Docklands wrong. It’s no wonder that no-one goes there. I’d hate to be one of the workers who got shunted out of the CBD into that ghetto. Wot no hook turns ? @Paul, there is your answer. With parked and stopping vehicles, and cars turning right, your “three” lanes is actually “one” lane. Oh look, there’s life! There’s stuff happening! (The fact that the old bit photo is taken from lower down, the level of life, helps make it look livelier too.) But yes, the Docklands are an excellent lesson in what not to do. Elect me as premier, and I will actually pay attention to that lesson, and might even do something to improve it, even if it’s just boulevard the middle of the road. Poor Docklands, doesn’t have much going for it unfortunately. There are a few nice little parks dotted around but certainly some serious planning errors (especially the ugly concrete mess left behind by last year’s re-alignment of tram tracks along Harbour Esplanade). Despite wide footpaths it’s not terribly pedestrian-friendly due to traffic lights that only let you cross once in a blue moon. A suburb that really, really needs more big trees to provide some shade (and hide the NAB building). That road is wider than most of Sydney’s freeways are… Reminds me of Perth. Plenty of space, but no-where to go. Does the pedestrian bridge over to Docklands Stadium count as Bourke St? I say, Docklands should have come sooner! Because that way maybe some of the CBD’s historical sites might have been preserved. I can’t for the life of me understand why they had to tear down so much in the center of the city. Sometimes replacing beautiful turn of the century ‘skyscrapers’ with grey boxes only a few levels high. Like the APA Building (The Australian Building) on Elizabeth St, which was the worlds 3rd tallest building back in 1889, which was left to rot and then demolished in 1980. :( I’ve seen some European cities where you have the old part of the city and the new ‘business hub’ separate. There is still life and vibrancy in both, yet they didn’t have to sacrifice one for the other. Melbourne still feels suffocated and at risk of disappearing under greedy developers who could care less about urban planning or the aesthetics of their individual buildings. Comments are closed.