Posts by Lilith __
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Tom Semmens,
Well, I think anyone who looks at what uncontrolled development looks like in Texas or Queensland might conclude this is what a lot – maybe a majority – of people currently want. And that is exactly the discussion that hasn’t been had.
But isn't the whole point that this development is controlled?
And as for discussion, we had a very lengthy public submission process here -- Share An Idea -- to which 40,000 people contributed.
Fewer cars in the Central City, greater use of the Avon corridor as a pedestrian/cycle route and integration of the tram into the public transport network are some of the emerging themes from the 40,000 ideas Greater Christchurch residents have shared for the redevelopment of the Central City.
-
Capture: Two Tales of a City, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
You got my best side!
Is this the elusive Mr Dalziel?! In the Sherlock Holmes hat?
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Tom Semmens,
The reality of life in Christchurch post earthquake is actually going to be a decentralised existence lived in big box shopping complexes of K-marts, Mitre 10 Mega stores, Harvey Normans and Pack n Save – Mt. Wellington as a model of urban living. They will of course all connected by clogged four lane dual carriageways. Work in Addington, shop in Wigram, live in Riccarton, holiday at the bach. SUV owners only need apply.
Without wishing to be pessimistic....
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Sacha,
As for the stadium, even the PM acknowledged it will end up surrounded by sports bars, but what will that neighbourhood be like during the day? Will residents or businesses want to co-locate there? Are they even allowed to?
This is why I wonder why it has to be in the CBD. A stadium has even less to do with the normal life of the city than the Convention Centre does. And I remember the throngs of angry-drunk and manic-drunk people streaming to and from Lancaster Park, as it was then, on match nights. And how most of the time the stadium sat empty.
Can't it stay in Addington?
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Russell Brown,
Wasn’t the previous convention centre owned by the council and connected to the Town Hall? I can’t see the virtue in rejecting meeting places. Anyway, the tourism people seem over the moon about it.
The old Convention Centre was OK, but it wasn’t used by locals and was a big box* that we had to walk past to get to other things. Putting one on the Square would be stupid, because the Square needs community things for the locals or it will re-create the farce it was pre-quake, surrounded by tourist shops and facilities, but otherwise dead.
Yay for the Library on the Square, though! :-)
*So different from when the Star newspaper offices were on that site, and people were constantly bustling in and out! :-)
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Stephen Judd,
in fact what we need is some deliberately crummy, short term buildings like the container mall. Then I predict that by 2030, people will be wringing their hands about how to stop the iron rusting and writing columns celebrating the quirky and unusual workshops and galleries that inhabit the marginal structures that were never meant to live that long.
I agree. And I think it's the unique and quirky small businesses that will give the CBD its character, but they don't seem to have rated a mention in the plan.
And while I think the Frame is great, it's a little different from the "City in a Garden" that the Council Draft Plan suggested: there, the CBD was full of green spaces alternating with buildings.
Worst-case scenario would have the Frame as a green desert enclosing big dark boxes with chilly canyons between.
-
Field Theory: And they're off!, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
but the type of sport where judging is so subjective that multiple judges are needed in order to balance things out is different from sports where one judge (of any particular aspect) is considered sufficient
I hear controversy on a regular basis about referee decisions in rugby matches. Perhaps they too could benefit from a team of judges giving balance!
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Tess Rooney,
So if we keep the definition of marriage as a man and a woman it’s the fault of filthy, filthy religion. But if we change the definition to include two people of any gender it’s also the fault of filthy, filthy religion.
Huh? I’m not understanding what you mean?
Edit: Oh OK I found the relevant bit. Personally, I think if the State recognises and regulates marriage, then it's a civil more than a religious institution.
-
Field Theory: And they're off!, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Not saying I agree with removing particular sports, but if a sport needs multiple judges, in order to ensure some type of fairness, or if the highest and lowest scores get dropped, maybe that’s more the type of judging which is concerning.
Why? As long as it's fair?
And why shouldn't sport have a judgeable aesthetic component, if it's relevant? I'm thinking of gymnastics, where style and panache are clearly part of the skill of elite athletes.
-
Capture: Two Tales of a City, in reply to Sacha,
which are apparently in the *next* 100 days of planning. Somewhat arse-backwards. For now you get a big bus interchange on the edge of the cbd rather than the centre, and some mention of cycleways, bike storage and parking buildings. All the green space looks promising for cycling and walking.
The transport solutions are key. Otherwise no-one will go there except tourists. We need free shuttle-buses and loan bikes in the central city, co-ordinating seamlesssly with the parking and city bus facilities.