Posts by Hebe
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Capture: Cinema Scoped, in reply to JacksonP,
Cool! It was a long movie.
Hey what about a thread gathering the most memorable scenes people remember from a movie at a particular theatre? Mine would have to be the Regent in the Square in 1978 or 79: Carrie; When, just as we we all shuffling our bags and putting on coats, bam! The bloody forearm reaches out of the empty ground and grabs .... The entire theatre froze.
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to tim oliver,
There is going to be a *lot* of opposition to a new cricket ground in Hagley Park. I’m half thinking it’s there as a sacrificial duck.
Undoubtedly. Every city plan needs a good lightning rod.
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Lilith __,
the much touted success of Pegasus Town relative to its neighbours in the earthquakes, as a result of major groundworks prior to building
Pegasus land has yet to convince me; it's a good distance from the faults that have gone so far. It would be interesting to see what happens to that land if the Kaiapoi fault pops (the biggest fault in the area, which is just off the coast by Pegasus).
-
Capture: Cinema Scoped, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
I had forgotten a lot of those theatres until I followed that link. The Cinerama was awe-inspiring. I saw the Omen there when I was mid to late teens: horror films are not my thing and the wraparound screen was terrifying. The man was searching the boy’s hair for the numbers on the lad’s scalp. One six appeared, another six. Then … “it’s a seven” someone bellowed, and the whole theatre roared with laughter. My father never forgot seeing Tora Tora Tora with the kamikaze fighters coming straight for him – he loved the place..
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Sacha,
You want them to talk to each other? Can't be done.
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to BenWilson,
Nothing can stop that: 20 seconds and it's gone.
Not necessarily. If it's raised enough, it could be entirely unaffected. In fact, if liquefaction is constantly happening, it would make sense to build transport infrastructure that is impervious to it.I cannot believe that's possible having experienced the big quakes. Seeing the tidy road around the corner turn into a roaring torrent of mud and debris up to the top of a large SUV's wheels; standing in the school field basically on top of the fault and feeling and hearing the ground roar, heave, groan and howl more or less constantly for two hours, with the smash! of another quake at odd intervals. I cannot now believe that anything humanity can build will withstand those forces. Maybe I'm traumatised still and it is possible; I don't know.
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Russell Brown,
Shock waves from an eruption will break windows and flatten buildings, fiery fountains of lava will set structures and trees ablaze, and base surges - a ground-hugging, deadly mixture of steam and solid particles - will envelop everything within a 5km radius. All that on Day One.
The council's hazards page also predicts related earthquakes and tsunami. There's an 8% chance of an eruption taking place in anyone's (80 year) lifespan. Which sounds way too fucking likely for comfort.'Kinell. Grabaseat will be busy. Make sure your doombox is portable.
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Chris Waugh,
I guess we just drop the technological hubris and adapt ourselves to our environment instead of trying to force our environment to adapt to our petty and petulant demands.
Yes, yes, yes.
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Lilith __,
The faults around Chch that have recently moved are long-return events, the Greendale fault near Darfield that caused the Sept 4, 2010, quake had not ruptured in at least sixteen thousand years. The alpine fault and the faults running through Wellington and Hawkes Bay are MUCH more active.
That is true. The seismic chain reaction set off by the Greendale, which is believed to be in turn from the earthquakes on the Porters fault in 1994, is currently angled toward the east and north. The faults you see on the maps are not the only ones; more are buried beneath our alluvial plains, and we will inevitably see more popping. It is to be hoped that no more are not under the city, though they may be. This seismic sequence is estimated to have around 30 years to run -- a nanosecond in geological terms. Then the Alpine: the duration of shaking in Christchurch will be much longer -- measured in minutes not seconds -- and though much farther away will still be felt strongly. That could involve more liquefaction of land in the city than the shakes over the last two years.
It's not as simple as saying the big one one has come and gone and it won't happen for another 15,000 years. Another one could have big effects, and it could happen tomorrow.
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Steve Barnes,
A floodplain on geologically unstable terrain is not a suitable place to build a City. I think Nature made that point quite plain.
No amount of mitigating earthworks will beat a solid foundation. Maori understood this and only used the area as a seasonal encampment, we, on the other hand, decided to build high-rise structures. Not smart.Christchurch was basically a raupo swamp with some higher parts, and the drier and more stable gravels going out west and to the northwest. Drained, this squidgy land makes for good gardening; my river suburb has lush deep river loam and wonderful trees. But it bounces and/or liquefies when shaken. The land under central city is much the same, with weaker spots where old streams flowed. It can be rebuilt upon, but unless buildings' underpinnings take account of this weakness, the city will fall again and again.
Aside from buildings, the land will always be vulnerable to a big shake. The streets could well rack and roll again and be flooded with mud, sinking hundreds of millions of dollars worth of strategically-planned rail tracks. Nothing can stop that: 20 seconds and it's gone.
I reckon that if we are going to stay here we must sit lightly on the land in every way. I don't see the plan acknowledging that we cannot use our land in the same way ever again.
Islander suggests we go; I think it's inevitable we stay but that we shape-shift to suit what what we now know.