View Full Version : A Crusie Ship Terminal in the Broady.. What the ?

08-03-2002, 04:41 PM
It’s in the Gold Coast Bulletin again today. There are two more proposals to put a cruise ship terminal in the Broadwater. #The so called developers want to make Wavebreak Island bigger, put in hotels, motels, luxury homes, resorts, #shopping centres etc etc. #The Gold Coast Mayor supports the idea … “boy this will bring in the Tourist Dollar “ .. He reckons the Gold Coast has been calling out for this for years.

As a regular Broady fisherman I am starting to get this sick feeling in my stomach that something is going to happen with this. #Sure we can all say “hey this is never going to happen, they won’t do this” believe you me there are a lot of people who consider the Gold Coast is already a concrete jungle so a little bit more development won’t hurt.

Who really benefits from the “Tourist Dollar”. #In the majority it is the wealthy. The large multinational hotels and shopping centres. Sure small business would improve and employment would be better but on the Gold Coast this mostly means more opportunity for those moving in from NSW and Victoria and don’t forget the hordes of Kiwis that now call Australia home. (I know I sound like a parochial Queenslander .. but stiff)

I am in favor of progress but not if it means destroying the natural habitat of our bread and butter species.

Well that’s my 2c worth. I think this will come to a head big time in the next few years. What to you guys think.



08-03-2002, 05:12 PM
I don't think so Wayne, I'm sure this idea was tossed about some twenty odd years ago, the fact remains the Seaway simply does not have the depth or protection to allow the passage of vessels the size of cruise ships, still we are talking about the mighty tourist dollar so who knows what is possible.
It will be interesting to hear other views.


08-03-2002, 05:23 PM
>:( You can just imagine what they would have to do to get
ships that size thru the seaway, they couldnt make the turn
near wavebreak, so goodbye wave break , the channel to
nerang bridge would have to be dregged to buggery, so
goodbye logs and banks around seaworld, think it would
cost a bloody fortune to get them in , can see it on the news
Cruise ship runs aground on seaway wall. But time will tell
look what they've done to the area in the last 20 years,
money talks when it comes to these projects. But I think the
objections would far outway the for's

08-03-2002, 05:29 PM
;D Send em up the lovely Brisbane river! Is that plan still being tossed around? Why screw the Gold Coast anymore than it already has been. Hopefully, it's not a goer!

08-03-2002, 06:25 PM
I though exactly the same.. they got to be kidding, its not feasible... but the proposals keep coming up all the time and the press on the Gold Coast give it front page news. There is even a petition at Charis Seafoods to stop the development planning. A lot of really big money is currently being spent on further development of Concrete Paradise er I mean Surfers Paradise. Construction of a 77 story highrise is about to start so big money attracts big development.

There's an argument that Wavebreak is an artifical island anyway so why not develop it. I wonder if we can represent the Bream, Whiting and Flathead and claim native ownership of the environment

08-03-2002, 09:08 PM
A deeper seaway channel will mean more volume of water coming in and out with the tide. THis will lead to higher tides inside the Broadwater, possible flooding of low lying areas on bigger tides and in storms, risk of increased erosion on channel bends in Broadwater and river, and much more energy in waves coming through. Ever looked at surf iside Sydney Harbour in a storm sea?
Passage through such a narrow channel into open sea by large tourist ships would be dangerous in many tide and sea conditions with so little rome to manouvre.
Cost of pumping sand around bar for eternity may increase significantly and will be borne by general public and not developers.
In short, we are once again playing with something we know absolutely nothing about. Harbours of the size proposed should NEVER be built in artificial seaways which may have a limited life without major maintenance in the big scheme of things anyway.
Has anyone considered global warming and the predicted sea level rise?
Bloody ridiculous if you want my opinion. I doubt that the proponents understand or have considered the potential implications.

08-03-2002, 09:17 PM
;DWanye I have to agree with Katrina why not spend abit on the Hamilton wharf and send all the liners there?

>:(We have to keep em out of the seaway!

;)They can always take a short trip down the road to the coast if they want a swim hey.

Cheers Lyndo

09-03-2002, 07:41 AM
From what I have read so far the intention is still to construct a cruise ship terminal at Fisherman's Island but they believe it is also viable for a second terminal to be at the Gold Coast.

Apparently in the US some of the cruise ship ports are very close to each other, they stop for a day and then cruise overnight to the next destination. Of course we have to be like the USA.

It all sounds far fetched to me and I agree with Vern that I don't think anybody has really looked at the effect this would have. Trouble is Governments are now starting to throw ideas around and we all know where politicians have there heads.