Hugh Fletcher secretly funds this blog (he was at King's College with Russell Brown)
I thought they were teammates at Paremoremo Boys' High
My call would be to encourage you all to drift south by making sure the infrastucture is there
And if you don’t want too, next time it shakes tough luck
My point in writing this – obviously made not very clearly, alas – was to show that it is more economic (for the river taken as a whole) to remediate the land rather than demolish and rebuild elsewhere. The wholesale abandonment of the entire city of Christchurch (much of which is quite undamaged) would be *phenomenally* uneconomic.
And, of course, the remediated land should survive any future earthquakes, so we shouldn’t need anyone to console us by declaring “tough luck” (and other such touching sentiments) next time!
In fact, with the remediated land, Christchurch may be one of the safer cities in comparison to Auckland (built on a volcanic field), Wellington (built on a fault line), and Dunedin (much of the housing on sandy soil within the quake zone of the Alpine Fault). Tsunamis would probably have a big death toll in all these places, of course.
Dear David - you saved me an awful lot of ignorant breath in trying to explain just WHY it's OK to go back in live in certain parts of CHCH (like Avonside Drive.) My builder/contractor brother was on to it, and makes sense but it took that kind of explicate detail to win the day- tah!
No worries, Islander. Glad to be of some help! And -- now that (amazingly) both my children are simultaneously asleep -- I have time to mention how pleased I was that Arapeta Ota had provided such great licking material for your younger relatives. He's been flying out the door recently, and I have happy visions of him being roundly licked by many of the younger citizenry of this nation.
... part of me regards the sheer breadth of Mr Haywood's skillset as bordering on the indecent.
Ha! -- and yet I frequently feel like the stupidest person on Public Address. Perhaps I have breadth but not depth or something.
One alternative might be to move well-performing houses in the east to under-used land still in the east but closer to the centre of town – replacing ugly light industrial areas with potentially vibrant residential areas, ensuring along the way that you plan gardens, pubs and dairies etc.
Thanks for that, Matthew! That's a very interesting idea that I hadn't come across.
and yet I frequently feel like the stupidest person on Public Address.
I think we've had ample evidence this evening that that is far from true...
What a beautiful thought! And fact- when you come to the West, - or to Waimate - or to Oamaru, - we'll (youngsters not oldsters - do not be frightened!) lick Arapeta & entourage into a wonderful Kai Tahu fest- nau mai! Piki mai!
That means that the area of land likely to be flooded in the event of a springtide coinciding with a heavy rainfall event is close to what would have been expected from a 3 metre tsunami prior to the earthquake changes. In that event the entire expressway from Bromley to Shirley Golf Course would be underwater along with half of Avonside, Dallington, Avondale, Aranui and South Brighton.
I admit that I haven't yet got my head around the river level changes. How much of the rise is due to new sand in the river bed; how much to the fact that the banks have moved closer together; how much to the land slumping beside the river?
If it's mostly the first two factors, then -- as Lilith says -- dredging may be a practical solution. In the event of the third factor, the cost of stopbanks may not be such an issue (after all you'd have to deliver a lot of soil/gravel to the banks anyway if you go the vibrocompaction route), but the consequences of stopbank failure would be pretty bad.
Do you have hard data on this? If so, I'd be *very* interested to see it.
That’s a very interesting idea that I hadn’t come across.
I don't know what they're going to do with the tens of thousands of Post-it note ideas from the Share An Idea expo, messages on their website, tweets etc. But some of the speakers did their best to inspire in what are inspirationally challenged times round the traps. My Post-it contribution was to think of the kids when putting streets back together.
The thing I've never been able to work out about the floating system is how you relevel it after a quake.
Perhaps ask Meridian Energy. I understand that Tekapo B is mounted on a concrete raft because the bedrock is underneath a stupidly deep amount of moraine.
And as for the other days, the howling westerly will just create waves, there will be no mirror. Sorry it's just too grand, great for it's hemisphere, but not roaring 40's.
You are a bit literal. It's the changing and unpredictable nature of it that makes it so captivating. It only works as a "mirror" during a fairly brief phase of its cycle (at its best when entirely empty, not at all when it is mist fountains). And the wind is a red herring. Bordeaux has a wicked seabreeze, and it's a seriously exposed open space (I really can't think of anywhere in Christchurch that has that little shelter; it's right next to a 400m wide river, and quite far from any buildings and trees). and at those times there is no frolicking, but the waves add an interesting dimension. I also have to wonder if you have ever lived in Canterbury. I think it would be super popular in a norwest. Hell, at my (high) school we use to go and run through the irrigator on the sports field.
I'm also not suggesting that Christchurch should wholesale copy it, but that it is a time to embrace opportunities. Bordeaux really reinvented itself a decade ago (mostly to try and win some european thing), but pedestrianising, tramming, and other cool things have really made it an amazing city.
we use to go and run through the irrigator on the sports field
Try the paddling pool in Hagley Park in a nor'wester. It's madness.
Fast, and smooth.
Oh, and in related news, Megan, I discovered today that the new RNZ CHCH studios no longer have double beds. So our shared dream of broadcasting from bed is an opportunity that has been missed forever.
Also, with regard to your Rolleston comments earlier in this thread, I’ve received an email from a Rolleston resident complaining that I used a “contemptuous tone” when mentioning Rolleston to Kathryn Ryan today, and that people should “stop picking on Rolleston”. So I’m just passing that message on to you. Either an on-air apology or an RNZ organized public meeting/apology in Rolleston might be appropriate.
Thanks for a very clearly explained costing, David. But thanks especially for expelling the rumours.
I presume you've never lived in a city with a central pond/skate rink. I've lived in several. It's a fantastic way of bringing families into the centre of the city, rather than just business people and shoppers. And it would be a welcome lo-/no-cost winter activity in the city (and we need things like this to encourage some international students, visitors etc. back once the CBD is open again). That CERA is already thinking about how the city should be rebuilt for the citizens should be considered a huge step towards redevelopment, should it not? Cantabrians want a say in how the city is rebuilt, and the overwhelming response so far has been for a city that encourages pedestrians, visitors, shoppers etc. into the centre, in lieu of cars, carparks and concrete highrises. It seems Sutton is taking that on board.
As for a park along the river.... Christchurch already has those. What the people of Christchurch _need_ is a continued appreciation of the aesthetic of our city. We've marketed ourselves as a "Garden City" and as being "English" -- these labels have always reflected our riverside dwellings with their spacious and tree-filled fronts. The ideal of living in Christchurch for many is generally about living in or near such open, green suburbs while remaining close to the city centre. We have a fantastic lifestyle that many overcrowded cities can't offer. If we relocate large proportions of the city to the satellite towns, then the reason for living in Christchurch is gone. (And as another poster pointed out, mass relocation to e.g., Rolleston would incur similar infrastructure costs.) Abandoning the riverside suburbs is tantamount to abandoning the city as a place to live.
Also, just a note on using Rolleston etc. as an example -- I'm sure most people on this forum and elsewhere are not employing a "tone" regarding the _place_ itself so much as the _idea_ of wholesale relocation so far from the city. No offence intended.
Thanks for some fascinating comments, Paul. The thing I've never been able to work out about the floating system is how you relevel it after a quake. I'm sure there must be a way -- but I can't seem to find anything about it.
A great question - since the liquefaction continues after the 'quake one assumes that there's a tendency to self level - but a spirit level and "kids all run into the laundry, pull the big telly with you" before it sets might help do the trick.
As I mentioned a lot of earthquake safety in California seems to be more aimed at surviving and walking away to claim your insurance rather than preserving the structure of houses when "the big one hits". The same 'floating houses' were being fitted with breakaway safety gas lines (we all had earthquake gas shutoff valves). Our old neighbourhood in Oakland was settled by people who had moved there from San Francisco after the '06 quake leveled the city - our house was built then - of course they moved right on top of the next fault line over, the one supposedly scheduled to go next.
David, are there not enough rumours about me and various Public Address writers without you adding to the pot?
But I know, I have seen photos of the new studios, and it doesn't look nearly like you could host a party there. And the architecture is significantly less mock-tudor, which I think is a loss.
As for Rolleston, I have several family members who live there, and they are very happy to do so. And it has very nice smooth wide roads and footpaths. And The Warehouse there was not busy when I went to buy something on Boxing Day. I am sure it is a very nice place. I'm told the local pub is good.
(It's just a shame it has no personality, is poorly located, and all the houses look exactly the same, and every time I visit, I feel vaguely like I'm going to be chased out of town by people wielding pitchforks.)
Also, just a note on using Rolleston etc. as an example – I’m sure most people on this forum and elsewhere are not employing a “tone” regarding the _place_ itself so much as the _idea_ of wholesale relocation so far from the city. No offence intended.
Oh, no, I am employing a tone. Mainly because I hate massive subdivisions full of cookie-cutter houses and manicured lawns. But also, because as you say, the idea of a wholesale moving of Christchurch seems, aside from being stupid and expensive, to miss the point of Christchurch being what it _is_. As you say the Garden City. I don't live there any more, but every time I go home, I am struck by what a pretty city it is, and Avonside is one of my favourite parts. The idea of Christchurch as a whole bunch of big parks dotted with brand new suburbs seems very very wrong.
Thanks for the lolz, Megan and David and Sacha :-)
I hate massive subdivisions full of cookie-cutter houses and manicured lawns
I lived for a year in Parklands, which is a very tidy suburb full of frighteningly tidy houses with frighteningly tidy gardens, and the streets all look the same. If tidiness is what you want, it's for you. We used to get flyers in the letterbox from a company offering, for a fee, to varnish our driveway. I wish I'd kept one because when I tell people, they don't believe me. A lot of driveways in Parklands are coloured concrete, which, so I'm told, suffers from fading and patchiness if unvarnished.
Personally, I like the older suburbs which are full of big trees and character and variety and driveways no one even considers varnishing.
Mainly because I hate massive subdivisions full of cookie-cutter houses and manicured lawns.
So, our kids now go to school out next to the Aidanfield subdivision. And it's fucking Stepfordy. In a tolerant mood, I tried to convince myself that it only looks so samey and artificial because it's new, and in twenty years when people have added their own individual touches to each house, it won't be so bad. But. Slightly tricky when there's nothing on the houses you could paint and each extends to about a metre from every boundary so there's no room for a tree.
So, our kids now go to school out next to the Aidanfield subdivision. And it’s fucking Stepfordy.
There's one up near Upper Hutt, but I forget the name. I drove around it one day, and really did feel like I was in Stepford. There's no cars parked on the streets, there's hardly any traffic on the roads. There's no trees, only carefully pruned shrubs.
Aside from the lack of infrastructure (no parks, no bus stops, no local dairy), it felt deserted. This was a Saturday afternoon in the middle of summer, and there were no kids playing, no toys out on the front lawn, no one walking along the footpaths. It was fucking creepy. I felt like people were watching me from behind curtains, and sneering at me for my disheveled hair and that I wasn't driving a Holden station wagon.
Oh, no, I am employing a tone. Mainly because I hate massive subdivisions full of cookie-cutter houses and manicured lawns.
So do I -- then again, I can't afford to live in a massively over-leveraged "character" villa in a chi-chi suburb that used to be slum not that long ago, and I'm too fucking lazy to spend every spare hour gardening so the handkerchief sized patch of scrub outside my window works fine.
I can’t afford to live in a massively over-leveraged “character” villa in a chi-chi suburb that used to be slum not that long ago
Perhaps Auckland differs from Chch in that way? Here, some of the older suburbs are costly to live in, and some (like where I am) are really cheap. Character villas for everybody who wants them! Tumbledown turrets and tangled gardens optional!
it’s fucking Stepfordy.
Emma I don't like your tone. I, for one, as a member of the Men's Club, feel that you do not appreciate the true beauty of our fine town and are long overdue to report to the Town Hall Medical Centre.
I admit that I haven’t yet got my head around the river level changes. How much of the rise is due to new sand in the river bed; how much to the fact that the banks have moved closer together; how much to the land slumping beside the river?
Very soon Cera will introduce its controversial "For-Shore and See-Bed" legislation whereby some areas will be structurally "Shored" for sure, and the risen up "See-Bed" areas will be vacated because of flooding dangers... what could possibly go wrong?
Character villas for everybody who wants them! Tumbledown turrets and tangled gardens optional!
Yeah, absolutely. When we were house-hunting, pretty much at the not-quite-bottom of the market, we could have afforded a place in Woolston or Avonside, just. Avonside still has quite a few Housing NZ properties in it, so those old villas by the river are never going to get ridiculously expensive.