28 September 2009

Immigration Bridge marches on

| johnboy
Join the conversation
32

ABC 666 has just had an Immigration Bridge spokesman on promising that their long march will not be deterred by widespread dislike for their project here in Canberra where they want it built.

Still taking donations for the bridge for the bridge and having spent some coin they’re now exploring alternatives.

One such being alternative to their earlier proposal is a suspension bridge which would at least remove pylons from the lake.

A suspension Immigration Bridge

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

UPDATE: The ABC’s report is now available:

    Immigration Bridge Australia campaign director Andrew Baulch says the group is now working on a new design, with a suspension bridge as one option.

    “We’ll be looking at minimising the number of objects that are in the water, ” he said.

    “We will have intense consultation and try to carry everybody ahead with us,” he said.

    “If at the end of the day that is not possible obviously we’ll have to look at an alternative site but this whatever happens the project will go ahead and it’ll be a great project for Canberra.”

Join the conversation

32
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

The immigration bridge would just introduce more useless clutter to the Lake’s environs while wrecking Burley Griffin’s legacy of the vista of the western hills and Brindabellas as seen from the Lake and the Parliamentary Triangle.
The NCA should have given the thumbs down to this proposal from the outset.

ant said :

I see they are continuing to pointedly ignore my suggestion of a mud and carp watching memorial immigration tube.

Typical.

Keep trying Ant. I think you have a fine idea.

Anna, immigration bridge is going near where the Bender memorial is up.

We’re not going to be hosting jokes that invalidate the right to be here of every non-white Australian.

If you don’t like that find another web site, start your own, please yourself.

Further dissent on this point will be moderated.

Why was OC’s comment offensive but Pandy’s comment including Katie Bender wasn’t?

If the Ed disagrees with what’s said, or it is somehow personally offensive to him(s) or contributes nothing to the story in question, you or I wont have a right of reply or a soapbox.

I too thought it was tongue in cheek, consistent with at least half of the posts on RA. If only we turned away migrants back in 1788, we wouldn’t have this problem

I agree with ant. it was obvious OC was having the mickey.

No ant, we’re just not going to tolerate racism.

If you have a concern about editorial direction you’re advised to make it directly.

Consider yourself warned.

So you can only make comments here that are palatable to certain people? Maybe you should make a list of what’s OK and what’s not, just so’s people understand that.

When I read OC’s comment, I read it as tongue in cheek, as he/she has shown himself/herself to be a very human, decent and intelligent person in the past.

Plainly that counts for nothing when some people want to fall over each other to Kick The Racist (and to be seen to be doing so).

There’s a good immigration museum in Melbourne. Maybe they need a bridge?

I think its good to celebrate immigration, but more important to remember and educate about the history. The Melbourne one is a start on that. And they have plaques with names of immigrants all over the courtyard.

This bridge seems like unnecessary duplication, with only the vanity aspect being met, without education.

old canberran8:22 pm 22 Jul 09

Sorry people. That comment of mine didn’t quite come out the way I intended. I should have stopped at the first sentence.

I would like to see an immigration guard tower built as the memorial on the lake shore near where Bender was standing. It would be equiped with a 105mm howitzer equiped with paint bombs (pretty colours) and would take the odd pot shots at passing sailboats trying to land on on the south shore. Big speakers would be blaring out “Burning Bridges”.

Man there would be so many positive waves out there on this one.

Morgan said :

I’m just not seeing any kind of programmatic specificity coming out of the bridge lobby…

there is, morgan, it is just not very detailed…

johnboy said :

old canberran said :

This bridge would have to be most ridiculous proposal for Canberra that I have ever heard of. Why celebrate immigration? If we’d stuck to the white Australia policy we wouldn’t have the ethnic problems that we have today.

You know OC, it’s fair enough you left Canberra because you didn’t like it becoming the city a lot of us love.

But perhaps it would be best if you kept your racist sentiments to yourself on the South Coast.

Agreed JB. Stick to sending in the old pics OC, we really like them but please save us your particular brand of social commentary. BTW: I’m both white and an immigrant!

Grandpa forgot to take his meds again?

old canberran said :

This bridge would have to be most ridiculous proposal for Canberra that I have ever heard of. Why celebrate immigration? If we’d stuck to the white Australia policy we wouldn’t have the ethnic problems that we have today.

You know OC, it’s fair enough you left Canberra because you didn’t like it becoming the city a lot of us love.

But perhaps it would be best if you kept your racist sentiments to yourself on the South Coast.

old canberran4:17 pm 22 Jul 09

This bridge would have to be most ridiculous proposal for Canberra that I have ever heard of. Why celebrate immigration? If we’d stuck to the white Australia policy we wouldn’t have the ethnic problems that we have today.

I think something that hampers the passage of boats is entirely appropriate in the case of Australian immigration.

I see they are continuing to pointedly ignore my suggestion of a mud and carp watching memorial immigration tube.

Typical.

There would be better ways to celebrate immigration to australia, a walk between acton ferry terminal and the museum with plaques for each family would have a better response, and not impede the boat craft use on the lake, including the touristy ferry, and the paddle steamer. the bridge isn’t going to to be much fun in the heat of summer, or the cold of winter, regardless of how they try to sell it to us.

I know: why don’t they build the Immigration Bridge between Kupang (in West Timor) and Broome? Makes much more sense: after all, who wants to migrate from the Northside to the Southside?

I’m just not seeing any kind of programmatic specificity coming out of the bridge lobby…

neanderthalsis1:16 pm 22 Jul 09

mred said :

Perhaps they should consider a tunnel. 🙂

Or a labyrinth under the lake. The twist and turns could represent the bureaucratic tangle that is our immigration laws and in every dead end passage you could have a bogan draped in a flag yelling go back to where you came from.

Peewee Slasher12:47 pm 22 Jul 09

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/news/news_stories/news_ncet_Feb2009.htm

Go to submissions on this link – makes interesting reading, especially IBA’s claim that NCA have approved it.

How about an immigration monorail?

More seriously:

1) because of idiots throwing rocks at cars, we have to install ugly screens on all our bridges. How about we make those screens a celebration of immigration?

2) what about making the Tharwa Immigration Bridge? At least it goes somewhere…

Well said Morgan, in particular on:

2. I question the aesthetics of putting a structure like that in that location
and
4. It destroys the amenity of the Lake for users of the lake (boating etc)

Perhaps they should consider a tunnel. 🙂

Its still trying to seperate immigrants from their cash by selling them a bridge. In particular, one they don’t have the authority to sell.

As warm and tingly as their chosen marks\target audience might feel about the idea, its still a confidence scam (pig in a poke, specifically) until they get NCA approval.

Yeah, more of our money wasted on something that many don’t want, I fail to see to the point. Maybe they could use some the proposed savings out of Jon’s advertising bucket now….

no. 4. is presumably dealt with by the non-pylon suggestion. as for 2., i rekkun it could be a great thing, and also provide access from the south to acton peninsula without the lengthy trek round via c’wealth ave.

i also rekkun that the concept of a grand scale memorial / icon to the waves of immigration that had such a significant effect on australia, and on the definition of ‘australia / australian’ is itself worth pursuing – whether or no you consider this to be the way to express it.

build it and they will come – rekkun it will get a lot of traffic, to speak to no. 3.

To my mind, I don’t understand the bridge. I think the following points sum up my main points of quandry.

1. What is it for, who is the benificiary of the bridge
2. I question the aesthetics of putting a structure like that in that location
3. I dont see the bridge being used by many people
4. It destroys the amenity of the Lake for users of the lake (boating etc)
5. Its a lot of money for a bridge that has no identifiable need

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.