Hard News: Imagining Auckland: no thanks, actually ...
130 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
What I can't understand is why the Metro guy feels the need to dis Wellington in order to build up Auckland.
Seems very chip on the shoulderish. Why not just focus what is good about your place rather than trying to pull something down?
-
In fact, that clip just gets worse and worse. Talk about back biting.
The way to support the arts in New Zealand is not to go about shitting on other cities. Those two Aucklanders deserve to be hounded for a wasted opportunity and a good attempt at killing the arts scene in a parts of the country they appear to disdain.
If this is an example of 'super' Auckland flexing its muscles no wonder the rest of us might pause for thought.
-
If the remaining bodies are not reasonably large they simply will not have the critical mass in terms of resources to actually do anything.
Including "advocacy".
-
The way to support the arts in New Zealand is not to go about shitting on other cities. Those two Aucklanders deserve to be hounded for a wasted opportunity and a good attempt at killing the arts scene in a parts of the country they appear to disdain.
Aw, hardly, Don. I don't think a 10-minute panel discussion is going to kill the Wellington arts scene.
And people here do actually feel a bit miffed about the huge difference in per-capita funding for for major arts organisations cited by Simon Prast. Of the $68 million available each year to major arts organisations from the Ministry of Arts & Culture and Creatuve NZ, $9.5m makes it out of Wellington. He calculated a "per seat subsidy" of $135m for Wellington vs $7 for Auckland.
Well, yes. Our museum, with its magnificent Pacific collection, receives essentially no operational funding, even though it's more recognisably a museum than Te Papa.
But ...* the contention falls down a little when you look at the public funding attracted by the other sectors identified as being part f the creative industries by the 2005 Auckland City Council report -- TV production companies, for instance.
Anyway, Simon's point in writing the original story was more to gee up Auckland's own city council. Good luck with that.
-
Haven't watched the clip yet but bought the Metro in question. I agree with Don that there's no need to slag Welli to draw attention to Auckland's scene.
However, for decades I have noticed the completely disproportionate investment in Wellington's culture at national expense, so have considerable sympathy for the position of Hamish Keith and others about that.
I caught something in passing on RNZ about actors being forced to move north en masse when TVNZ changed their travel/relocation funding regulations a few years ago. Wonder if ex-Welli thespians could be driving the argument as they realise how well off they actually were?
-
even though it's more recognisably a museum than Te Papa
.
Careful, Russell. There is a whole field of museum studies that could dispute such assumptions.I'm a Te Papa fan mainly because it is free which means it is not so much a destination as such as another public part of the waterfront so you can drop by (ie by foot) for a variety of reasons, for a quick look at your favourite exhibitions or artworks, or to meet friends, or a concert in the magnificent marae and a rub of the pounamu, or a free place to take visitors to show off our history. And as a very recognisable and accessible museum, it is also always buzzing.
The Te Papa people and the citizens lobby hard to keep it so. A newbie MP at a select committee had the temerity to suggest they sell off the giant squid as a fundraiser. This ridiculous Ak/Wn competitive arts thing runs the risk of encouraging such stupidity.
-
I'm a Te Papa fan mainly because it is free
Auckland Museum used to be totally free. Then the funding woes hit it, and now you're "encouraged" to pay a "donation". Had Te Papa not been built, but instead its obscene sums of startup funding dropped on Auckland Museum, it'd be Totally. Fucking. Awesome.
But that would've meant acknowledging that Auckland somehow managed to build a world-class museum entirely independently from central gummint funding, and we just can't be having that shit.
-
but how will the people of North Shore, Manukau and Waitakere feel about paying to fix Auckland City's water and wastewater woes once there is s regional water entity?
How will Auckland City ratepayers feel about paying to build North Shore's new treated outflow pipe into the harbour? That's a long-term debt-funded construction, as I understand it. Fair's fair. Don't be bitching about you paying for some of our capital works (and don't forget that we've been carrying your share of a whole bunch of regional amenities for a long time!) if we're paying for some of yours.
It's that "We'll pay for ours, you pay for yours, and never mind that we both benefit from yours and ours" bullshit that's kept Greater Auckland in such a fucked-up state for so long. -
even though it's more recognisably a museum than Te Papa
Is that like a CD is more recognisably music than a digital download, then? :-p
-
I am not against funding stuff in Auckland. I argued very strongly for tax payer money to go to new stadium, the waterfront etc. Would love to see your museum free. And don't get me started on the public transport investment that is required there.
But don't blame Te Papa and Wellington for your woes. If you keep voting in tight fisted berks like John Banks & his buddies don't expect too much sympathy coming your way either. When did Banks last lobby for the Arts in Auckland?
Russell, you may need to watch that clip again. It goes well beyond good natured regional ribbing, which we all enjoy, and into rather bitter vitriol. Silly really.
-
Auckland City Council wears an awful lot of annual expense for things like MOTAT and Auckland Zoo, because they're located in Auckland City.
The arts budget is a pretty small (< 5% in Wellington) part of council spending. Also, city centre councils get the benefit of rates from CBD property, don't they?
I don't see any reason why community councils shouldn't provide many local services, either. I doubt there is much economy of scale in having a Auckland-wide garbage contract, for instance.
-
I doubt there is much economy of scale in having a Auckland-wide garbage contract, for instance.
Well, there's enough scale in the recycling contract to have justified the $30m "just chuck it all in the recycling bin" (yes, that's plastics graded 1-7) recycling centre in Onehunga, and it's only servicing some of the cities in Greater Auckland. Of course, with commodity prices having done a splendid imitation of an Airbus, it may no longer be quite as viable as it once was. It is, however, something that I love to rub in the face of my family who reside in Wellington and Hamilton, that we don't have to sort our plastics :P
-
I am not against funding stuff in Auckland.
That does, unfortunately, make you part of a minority. There are an awfully large number of people who reside elsewhere in this country who begrudge Auckland every last cent of taxpayer money that it gets, no matter what it's for or how much tax Auckland contributes.
-
How do the other big regional museums get their funding? It was my understanding that it was a combination of the host council and sometimes neighbouring councils.
If we are going to start some regular funding for museums nationally, in additional to the national museum in the capital then I'm only going to support this if Dunedin, Christchurch and other regional centres get similar support.
-
Ben, we're not suggesting national funding for museums. Or, at least, I wasn't. I was just lamenting the fact that squillions got poured into Te Papa rather than spending somewhat less to turn the existing, and widely-recognised, Auckland Museum into the national museum.
Yes, it's ordinarily a combination of regional and host-city funding. Auckland's a bit unique because of its cluster-fucked local authority structure. Most museums in other places don't have to contend with that kind of fractured, factionalised funding base. I don't think even Wellington has that kind of nonsense going on, though it could just be that Wellington, Hutt, Upper Hutt and Porirua manage to play like adults on such matters.
-
I'm a cultural tourist. I have been to Auckland, Dunedin and Christchurch over the years to see particular exhibitions. A few years ago I was at a conference in Auckland and was staying at a hotel near Sky City. I had some spare time and wanted to walk to the Auckland Art Gallery but couldn't remember where it was. So asked the hotel receptionist - who had no idea, never heard of it (and she was a local), and so she asked all the rest of the available staff. No one had any idea but eventually another tourist gave me directions.
I think that is what Simon W might have been getting at.
-
There are an awfully large number of people who reside elsewhere in this country who begrudge Auckland every last cent of taxpayer money that it gets, no matter what it's for or how much tax Auckland contributes.
Well, many Aucklanders seem to return the feeling with interest, especially where Wellington is concerned. It is an easy talk back wind up.
I still really don't get how dumping on, say, Downstage, helps the arts funding issue which is what these two Metro clowns did. I guess setting up an inter-city stoush sells more mags and pulls in the viewers.
-
wanted to walk to the Auckland Art Gallery but couldn't remember where it was
Now that is (or was) located in a reasonably friendly place.
BTW, the Monet exhibition at Te Papa, like quite a few others there, isn't free but it *is* well worth paying to see :-)
-
A couple of weeks ago I saw the excellent 'Hatch' at Wellington's Circa. It was a play written and developed in Auckland, based on real events in Southland early last century. I went with a friend from Dunedin who had grown up in Hawkes Bay with the actor (writing and performing plays since they were seven) That's NZ culture.
-
It's hard not to be cynical with the whole thing.
And God help us all if Cit-Rats get control over the whole region.
Yeah, don't elections suck shit when the results aren't to your liking? While I have sympathy towards the whole dilution of local representation argument, I'd have a damn sight more if the turnouts exceeded the kind of levels we sneer at when it involved Americans.
-
I had some spare time and wanted to walk to the Auckland Art Gallery but couldn't remember where it was. So asked the hotel receptionist - who had no idea, never heard of it (and she was a local), and so she asked all the rest of the available staff. No one had any idea but eventually another tourist gave me directions.
I have to say that's truly bizarre. I'd wager that pretty much every Aucklander I know would be able to place it without much trouble. Maybe we're the exception but I don't think so, especially when one considers it's placement in the central traffic flow.
-
Craig, the supercity proposal goes way beyond the "results not to your liking" into "people making decisions about your neighbourhood who don't live anywhere near you and don't have to suffer any consequences of their decisions". Which sucks shit regardless of the election results. FPP is just one way to make the results suck at even higher pressure.
You're right about the woeful turnout. But will the supercity go any way towards improving that by making Aucklanders more involved with local body politics?
-
Simon: possibly most of the Aucklanders who know where the art gallery is are those who spend most of their time out of Auckland?
-
I had to think hard, but remembered going to a Monet exhibition there in the early '80s when we lived in Waitakere city. I am not a fan of the idea of a proper super city. Many of the problems cited in Auckland seem to me solvable without going that far. I think how London works is a good example to follow. Having lived in a London Borough (Barnet) for five years prior to the reintroduction of the London Authority it was certainly needed. Individual Boroughs in London still do their own refuse collection but the LA is there to suggest synergies to them. The Boroughs in London give different parts of the city different characters that go beyond different coats of arms on the rubbish bins. I think that risking the loss of the sense of place in North Shore, West or Manukau is something that should be thought hard about. Besides when the sea level rises and the isthmus becomes an island it will look rather silly.
As for elections, they should be PR. Here in the UK we have recently moved to PR for local elections and what it means for our little area in Dundee is we have more than just Tories representing us on the council now (yes, reports of the death of the Tory party in Scotland were premature). I can see Manukau and Waitakere pushing hard for PR for eg.
And finally OT, I was a bit shocked by the story of the hang glider pilot who refused for an ambulance to be called because he feared being charged $50 for it. When did this come in? i seem to have missed that one. It highlights a hypocrisy where if I injure myself due to my own carelessness ACC picks up the tab but if I need hospitalisation because I catch a communicable disease through no fault of my own I pay through the nose. I am a fan of ACC and the lack of everyone suing everyone else, but this does seem to create tensions. By all means charge those who call ambulances unnecessarily, but $50 for everyone except accident victims?
So remember people, when the heart attack or meningitis hits, contrive to fall down the stairs and break something.
-
That's sage advice if you're about to become disabled for any non-accidental reasons. A good tumble can only help.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.