Jump to content

Douglas stinky beach


Broadcasterman

Recommended Posts

You're all seriously underestimating the power of waves and what they are able to pick up.  A three foot wave is strong enough to pick up and throw a person, yet alone some pebbles. 

Possibly if you dug down 10 or so feet, it might stop stones coming over.  Where would you put all that overburden you've take on off the beach?  It would be a huge amount.

If it was deeper, then the sea would come right up to the wall even on average sized tides - there would be no beach at high tide, like over near the bottleneck.  You'd also have to do this regularly = much cost.  Plus there'd be all kinds of nature nimby kick-off about destroying the beach habitat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

You're all seriously underestimating the power of waves and what they are able to pick up.  A three foot wave is strong enough to pick up and throw a person, yet alone some pebbles. 

Possibly if you dug down 10 or so feet, it might stop stones coming over.  Where would you put all that overburden you've take on off the beach?  It would be a huge amount.

If it was deeper, then the sea would come right up to the wall even on average sized tides - there would be no beach at high tide, like over near the bottleneck.  You'd also have to do this regularly = much cost.  Plus there'd be all kinds of nature nimby kick-off about destroying the beach habitat.

Do it once and the long shore drift barriers will keep it in place. It worked for years before and it works everywhere else in the world. They need to be replaced. And no of course it doesn’t affect the height of the tides but lowering the big stones and such currently up against the beach wall would greatly decrease the chance of them being hurled up by waves during high tides. It’s a man made beach. 
 

I’m sorry I said anything. I thought this was an intellectual forum for polite debate. All I can see are people bitching about people making constructive suggestions. My suggestion was to return to beach to the condition it was in for the last thirty years by doing some much needed maintenance and replacing the long shore drift barriers. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

 

If it was deeper, then the sea would come right up to the wall even on average sized tides - there would be no beach at high tide, like over near the bottleneck.  You'd also have to do this regularly = much cost.  Plus there'd be all kinds of nature nimby kick-off about destroying the beach habitat.

but all you are really doing is putting the beach levels back to how they were pre breakwater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, WTF said:

but all you are really doing is putting the beach levels back to how they were pre breakwater.

Fair point. 

The problem is it is all manmade/maneffected now.  Before the prom, the beach went all the way to cliffs behind the flats and hotels along the prom. 

Edited by The Phantom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

Fair point. 

The problem is it is all manmade/maneffected now.  Before the prom, the beach went all the way to cliffs behind the flats and hotels along the prom. 

perhaps peter kelly should be whining about the loss of the victorian beach ??

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, AineM said:

Do it once and the long shore drift barriers will keep it in place. It worked for years before and it works everywhere else in the world. They need to be replaced. And no of course it doesn’t affect the height of the tides but lowering the big stones and such currently up against the beach wall would greatly decrease the chance of them being hurled up by waves during high tides. It’s a man made beach. 

[...]  My suggestion was to return to beach to the condition it was in for the last thirty years by doing some much needed maintenance and replacing the long shore drift barriers. 

The may be another thing as well.  If you create a profile for the beach where it slopes up gradually to almost the same level as the Prom, it means that wave height is being increased as it reaches the land.  This the effect that makes tsunamis so deadly, converting a slight swell on the ocean to very tall waves when land is reached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

The may be another thing as well.  If you create a profile for the beach where it slopes up gradually to almost the same level as the Prom, it means that wave height is being increased as it reaches the land.  This the effect that makes tsunamis so deadly, converting a slight swell on the ocean to very tall waves when land is reached.

The difference between a tsunami and wind/swell wave is its massive wavelength/period and its huge speed. Its basically a sudden sea level rise rather than a true wave with a back to it.

A slowly sloping beach is what we have already. To achieve a similar solution to your proposal would actually be a steep slope (or an artifical reef) to the beach out near the low tide area to 'break' the waves earlier. But due to our big tides up to 7 meters this would have quite the visual impact at lower tides.

Artifical reefs have been created in a few places to protect against erosion and to create surfable waves. I don't think any of them have really worked and usually create problems elsewhere with it being such a dynamic environment. One of the biggest firms was called ASR. I met the owner at his resort in Lombok. They were based in NZ and built one there at Mt Manganui and also the one in Bournemouth, both were failures and the company is now bust.

 

common-vs-tsunami-waves.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

A slowly sloping beach is what we have already. To achieve a similar solution to your proposal would actually be a steep slope (or an artifical reef) to the beach out near the low tide area to 'break' the waves earlier. But due to our big tides up to 7 meters this would have quite the visual impact at lower tides.

That wasn't quite my point (I should have expanded it more) which was more that the phenomenon of increasing wave height makes things worse if the beach is sloping up to the level of the Prom, rather than hitting a wall and expending energy that way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The inherent problem is, a prom, a road and a load of buildings have been placed where the original top of the beach used to be. Then the harbour, breakwater etc. Already the natural order has been thrown out of whack. Every change you make will have a knock on effect somewhere.

Is the solution however more expensive and difficult to solve than the actual problem? It doesn't exactly get inundated with water regularly and people aren't being killed by flying pebbles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

That wasn't quite my point (I should have expanded it more) which was more that the phenomenon of increasing wave height makes things worse if the beach is sloping up to the level of the Prom, rather than hitting a wall and expending energy that way.

I'm not sure that is totally true. The water level is constant but the friction of the up sloping beach does absorb energy making the chance of overtopping water slightly less.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, The Phantom said:

The inherent problem is, a prom, a road and a load of buildings have been placed where the original top of the beach used to be. Then the harbour, breakwater etc. Already the natural order has been thrown out of whack. Every change you make will have a knock on effect somewhere.

Is the solution however more expensive and difficult to solve than the actual problem? It doesn't exactly get inundated with water regularly and people aren't being killed by flying pebbles.

Does anyone know when the original beach was built on? I assume it was before the age of photography, but are there any existing drawings or paintings of the area before construction took place? I can't recall seeing anything like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Zarley said:

Does anyone know when the original beach was built on? I assume it was before the age of photography, but are there any existing drawings or paintings of the area before construction took place? I can't recall seeing anything like this.

1876 the promenade was built before that this is the Palace and Castlemona basically on the beach.

488A436C-2052-4857-877C-FE885CDB6A29.jpeg

Edited by Cueey Lewis And The News
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Cueey Lewis And The News said:

1876 the promenade was built before that this is the Palace and Castlemona basically on the beach.

488A436C-2052-4857-877C-FE885CDB6A29.jpeg

Does anyone know where to find a photo or drawing of the area where the "Douglas old sea wall and plaque" is, when it was still the functioning sea wall? It's behind Dealz, on Howard St. (the lane behind Dealz) a little way from Loch prom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, AineM said:

Do it once and the long shore drift barriers will keep it in place. It worked for years before and it works everywhere else in the world. They need to be replaced. And no of course it doesn’t affect the height of the tides but lowering the big stones and such currently up against the beach wall would greatly decrease the chance of them being hurled up by waves during high tides. It’s a man made beach. 
 

I’m sorry I said anything. I thought this was an intellectual forum for polite debate. All I can see are people bitching about people making constructive suggestions. My suggestion was to return to beach to the condition it was in for the last thirty years by doing some much needed maintenance and replacing the long shore drift barriers. 

There are a lot of people who walk the promenade or beach regularly who would broadly agree with what you are suggesting. Many of them recall the time when there was a five or six foot drop from the promenade to the beach on Central Promenade.

AFAIK, the DoI have never explained why this idea is not worthy of exploration, they just want to spend a fortune building bigger and bigger walls, until we reach the stage when we can't actually see the sea!

Edited by Nellie
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...