Southerly: One Hundred and Thirty-one Million Reasons to Copenhagenize Christchurch
389 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 Newer→ Last
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
. . . the proposed cycle lanes for the central city look good!!
All part of what the emperor now declares to be a pretty big wish list.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Also, none of that professional planning restricting the superior intelligence of the free market. Every city can look like downtown Auckland if they're left alone.
[Canterbury Employers' Chamber of Commerce chief executive Peter] Townsend said the plan needed to provide an "aspirational framework", and should not be too prescriptive.
"If they're going to strictly limit the areas of retail space that you're allowed to occupy or if there's too much restriction on where in the city and how high it can be, I would rather see that done through sensible community consensus ..."
Someone do ask him what he means by that last phrase.
-
More reesponse to proposed building heights.
"I think the height is going to be an issue for some property owners," Paul Lonsdale from the Central City Business Association told TV ONE's Breakfast.
"You've got hotels that were traditionally 30 metres but now they're restricted to 17 metres.
"I suppose what I would suggest, if that is enforced, is they build a structure that could take another 13 metres at some later stage when people's mood changes towards the concern around earthquakes."
Lonsdale supported the moves to create a smaller CBD, saying it would create a vibrant focus for retail activity.
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
is they build a structure that could take another 13 metres at some later stage when people’s mood changes towards the concern around earthquakes.
It's not just about fear, though. It's also about letting light into the city, and particularly around the Square, which was quite literally over-shadowed by some of those hotels. If you want another 13 metres, build slightly further out from the newly-ensmallened CBD.
When I see the building-height sketches of the proposed CDB, what strikes me immediately is that the highest point is the spire of the Cathedral. That feels right. It's also what the community said it wanted.
-
Sacha, in reply to
It's also what the community said it wanted
And watch that get overturned by lobbying during the next stage of the process. Developer profits uber alles. Just ask Gerry.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
Surely the building height is a matter for the building code and should be set according to engineering principles? It's possible to build tall buildings that withstand big earthquakes - whether it's economic to do so is another matter.
The city plan should be about what's appropriate from an urban design point of view, not what can safely be built.
-
James Butler, in reply to
Also, none of that professional planning restricting the superior intelligence of the free market. Every city can look like downtown Auckland if they’re left alone.
Well, every city can look like Auckland if you deliberately design the roads and zoning to encourage sprawl...
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
the Minister may make any changes ... to the draft Recovery Plan as he or she thinks fit
The people advise, Gerry ignores.
-
Sacha, in reply to
if you deliberately design the roads and zoning to encourage sprawl
and who do you imagine lobbied for that?
-
Hebe, in reply to
Why accept the CCC spin on the building heights? The public when con-sulted (hyphen intended) asked overwhelmingly for no higher than four storeys, preferably two. The CCC has extended that to seven over a reasonably large chunk of the central city. Analyse the height of the buildings in that area until September 4 and you will find many, many, many didn't even reach four storeys. So we're going to end up with a much higher rise city overall than has been.
That is not the city of low-rise, wooden buildings asked for. Look around and see what's being hurled up before building regs are made more stringent: more tilt-slab horrors. No doubt in shades of grey, wet tussock, dry tussock, damp sand and silt as specified by the latest Resene colour chart. (Which are all relations of beige, and which is why Christchurch people love them so. Aargh.)
I do like the river park, but Gerry Brownlee has already ruled out the suburban red zones along the river to the estuary being re-wilded so that's a major greening-the-city opportunity lost.
As for light rail, useless unless it becomes the main commuter transport for the Waimak, and Selwyn growth areas. The plan I saw only took it to Hornby and Papanui; why when Rolleston and environs are going to have explosive growth and the Rangiora/Kaiapoi area is currently a commuter nightmare. Half-a billion for what? The per-trip cost will be hideous.
-
Hebe, in reply to
Con-sultation.
-
Islander, in reply to
con-insultation
where one party sniggers at another involved-but-relatively- powerless party's
lack of whack-until the riots come-
-
Sacha, in reply to
Why accept the CCC spin on the building heights?
What am I accepting? I agree with Emma that light is a more compelling motivation than fear. Someone on another thread also explained that high-rise buildings were if anything more eco-friendly than 4-floor ones, so it's not a clear-cut matter.
But I'm mostly struck by the politics of the announcement and the language of the parties opposed to regulations.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
Con-sultation.
-
Hebe, in reply to
Sorry, not meaning to be confrontationalistic. The politics of the announcement were all show, again: Thursday release, in time for Key's Friday visit, so the Weekend Press can unpick it all, but not quite enough time for the journos and thinkers to do more than a once-over. So public, with limited attention span and a whole heap else to do in their lives, read the paper on Saturday, think "oh, not bad." and don't think they need to submit. Nothing to frighten the horses on the consultation path there. Chamber of Commerce boys meanwhile get lobbying the National Party on the height limits and various other impediments to the free market. Don't expect any big decisions from the Govt until after the election, then it will be that the rebuild plans are too expensive and too prescriptive.
-
Hebe, in reply to
Do we get riots too? As well as the World Cup; I can't wait. Been a while since I had a good protest.
-
Sacha, in reply to
violent agreement
-
Islander, in reply to
Long as I can bring over my Coast blasters (not less than a trillion tonnnes per hour or so-in a good storm) I'm with you-
-
Hebe, in reply to
Hey we could do like 1981: rugby and riots all in one glorious package. Bugger, can't remember the chants though. We'll need senility flash cards for the bit after 2-4-6-8, we don't want your bloody quake...
-
AKT blog touches on the light rail side of the plan, with more info and links in the comments. One of them notes:
It will be interesting to see if the Greens get 10%+ of the vote, then the government of day would have battle with the Greens over any watering down of the proposed rebuild.
-
Islander, in reply to
t will be interesting to see if the Greens get 10%+ of the vote, then the government of day would have battle with the Greens over a
Wee bet*: Greens get plus 12% of the party vote: Labour regains at least one Maori seat, and the Maori party is electorally annihilated. The Southern swing is a probability- so said, several months ago in the feeling that the South will spring 2 surprises.
Any takers?
*Depending on who you are, I'll offer my terms-
-
Hebe, in reply to
Good link. As one of the commenters mentioned, the problem is the small market, 400,000 people spread out over a reasonably large area is big spend for a small market. BTW, the light rail idea came from the previous mayor Gary Moore, who repeatedly tried to put it up as a possibility. He's on the LTSA now; don't know if that will count for anything when it comes to funding decisions.
-
Hebe, in reply to
Wind tunnels too; Hereford St east of the Square used to be foul.
-
Earthquake risk hasn't stopped the Japanese or the Californians from building upwards, so surely it can't stop ChCh from doing the same.
-
"I suppose what I would suggest, if that is enforced, is they build a structure that could take another 13 metres at some later stage when people's mood changes towards the concern around earthquakes."
The prick who said that demonstrates how to pass "Progress and Development 101":
How to get a council to say "GO" to building a suburb on a swamp AND an ex tip.
Time is a wonderful tool for the deft hand of a developer.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.