Posts by Tom Semmens
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
There seems to be an assumption here that this government is actually interested in facts, when really they are just interested in pandering to the prejudices of a spiteful and vindictive middle class of a country whose political dynamic now more resembles Chile than Sweden. Just this morning we have the remarkable admission from Paula Bennett she doesn't need anything as pussy as evidence to make policy, because Stephen Colbert's "truthiness" does away with the need to actually do any research before imposing draconian new intrusions into the private lives of beneficiaries
Any decent media would have a field day with a ministerial admission that she doesn't need any evidence to enact a policy, but in this country this spiteful and vindictive woman simply gets away with it, butressed with the editorial blessings of our spiteful and vindictive mainstream media commentariat. -
Legal Beagle: MMP Review: Trusting Voters, in reply to Moz,
The interesting question is whether any Labour MPs would resign rather than go down that route.
It is interesting to consider if a proper coalition with the Greens would act as a dose of political purgative to a constipated Labour caucus, or if enough of the Greens would discover sitting in the back of a ministerial limo comfortable enough to develop a similarly obstructed caucus colon.
The triumphalism of Green supporters means they never pause to consider that the latter is probably more likely than the former.
-
An interesting article in today’s SMH about the mistakes Sydney made with Homebush and Darling Harbour, which resonate with me in relation to the this Christchurch plan:
Like Darling Harbour, whose failure we now blame on the bicentenary rush, the Homebush development began with a development corporation concerned mainly with marking its territory. The master plan, therefore, dropped a dozen or so unapproachable buildings like poached eggs into a sea of brick paving, then girdled the lot with impenetrables.
Nice to see a newspaper actually talking about town planning.
-
And you seem to believe people made submissions they didn’t really mean.
No, I am saying that delivering the desires they expressed might require a bit more brain power than a simple literal translation.
-
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.
I accept that this is the sort of feedback that emerged when people were quizzed on what they thought might be in an idealized city. But it seems to me that green corridors and good public transport are kind of soft-focus Mum and apple pie suggestions that as they are don’t actually tackle the actual nuts and bolts of modern living. I wonder for example how deeply people were probed on the reality of how they actually live their lives, and what the things they generally regard as making their lives more convenient might be. I would guess a whole different set of responses would emerge. For example, it is great to have a lovely river park, but wouldn’t it be better to line that river park with high density residential housing so that it is actually practical for someone living there to punt their beloved down the river on a summers day? Trams are fabulous and picturesque, but shouldn’t some thought be given to why people would use them if there was nothing going on downtown on the weekend? The idea should be to integrate people into a friendly, scaled urban landscape, not treat them as occasional interlopers into a foreign city’s downtown where they can marvel at the monumental works of Ozymandias before returning to their mundane suburban existence.
-
Without wishing to be pessimistic….
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 - how sustainable that might be, how to offer the same sort of convenience in a post-automobile future.
I know people have been asked what they want, but I am not sure if the bucolic existence people SAY they want at all aligns with the actual realities of their lives, which revolve around getting to and from work and hopefully having a good supermarket handy on the way.
-
My first thought was “where is the capitalism”? There is a “retail” precinct which appears tiny and everything else is a government office or a quango. The people will vanish after work, and apart from cafes that serve the workers their lunch I would suggest that the retail section will struggle. Downtown Christchurch appears to be so well laid out that it could be mistaken for a corpse, a sort of splendid mini-Canberra isolated from the rest of the city by monumental earthworks. More to the point, the plan is an explicit admission of defeat of the very idea of a vibrant “city”. Christchurch is going to become a series of connected suburbs, a monument to the anti-urbanism and middle class mediocrity that is this government’s vision of what constitutes the good life in New Zealand. The dead hand of Brownlee is everywhere in this plan.
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 be 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.
-
Field Theory: Olympics-eve, in reply to Richard Irvine,
I am left wondering what the point of all the TV coverage is. Much of the indifference to the Olympic I am picking up is probably attributable to the time difference meaning most of the live competition occurs while New Zealanders are asleep. We all know who won what when we wake up and listen to the news in the morning. In the same way I never watch full rugby matches if they are not live, once you know who won or lost you just want the highlights package.
-
As a political statement the opening ceremony had the merit of being much slyer than the one in Bejing. If China wanted the whole world to know where everything is being made, the British reminded the audience while their iPod might have been made in China, it is still Britain's pop songs that they are bopping to.
Personally I find the Olympic boring. It is run by an organisation steeped in the sort of culture only corrupt ex-fascists can create and is full of unspeakably boring sports that hardly anyone in this country likes or follows. Yet we are bombarded on a gazillion channels (if you have Sky) with tedious swimming heats, soporific cycling in circles, second rate soccer and all manner of time filling rubbish - and that is just first two days.
Still, I suppose we can look forward to unusual phenomena of the New Zealand team alone winning most of it's medals whilst sitting down, and the media presentation of this rare ability to win medals in what is usually a restful repose as an affirmation of our athletic prowess as a nation.
-
As for political cost, both you and I know, there will be none.
I wouldn't be so sure. I was having dinner with an very twin set and pearls Remuera accountant on Wednesday night and she was disgusted with Banks. Epsom/Remuera is full of people who are like to think they are quite "proper". Bank's reputation has taken a helluva a battering over this. I am pretty sure that as long as National select a candidate for Epsom in 2014 then he or she will defeat Banks.