Posts by Ed Muzik
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Emma Hart,
Exhaustion? It’s been nearly two years, Leigh. Quite a lot of us are knackered.
I'd also argue that going to a meeting to talk to planners who will probably not answer direct questions such as "do you know how much this stadium will cost" or "has anyone done a feasibility study on this?", knowing that they have absolutely no responsibility to take notice of anything you say sounds like an utterly depressing waste of time.
-
A couple of unconnected thoughts that popped up over the weekend. First, the proposed stadium is meant to be a great venue for concerts. But unlike Dunedin - which has only had the one big concert and don't have any more on the horizon - Christchurch still has other indoor concert venues. If the covered stadium were to be a concert venue, it would be cannibalising business from other venues, such as the CBS Arena at Addington - which is a council-owned facility. Pitching one council-owned asset against another.
Secondly ... the Frame runs between Madras and Manchester St. Now, aside from bookstores, what else was Manchester St known for pre-quakes? Are we going to create a 1km long park land for prostitution? Is that the safe, clean green vision for the "new Christchurch?"
-
Also, Mike Coleman is quoted in the paper this morning with a leak from the council that suggests the three big ticket items – stadium, convention centre, metro sports hub – will come to 1.2 billion. I was talking to someone in the know – ironically enough, at a gallery opening for the Art Gallery, being held at NG Space – who said that the costings were appalling. Will be very interesting to see Brownlee having to front up to questions about cost in the next few weeks – he can’t continue to say that it’s up to the council, when he is the one who decided on these things.
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Lilith __,
And BTW it’s great to have you on PAS, Ed Muzik! Your long form is even better than your tweets. :-)
Cheers! I think people who read my tweets think I'm really angry and cynical ... which is probably true. But I also have a weekly column in the local rag the Mail, which is now delivered with the Press on Thursdays I think. I have to somewhat temper my language for that format :-)
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Hebe,
Some of that protecting value would appear to be true but I reckon the frame is a landbank and sop to the green desires of the “make a wish” consultation.
I agree with the landbanking and the comment about playing to green desires. I think it says a lot about this government's view on "green" issues - people called for a "green city" through share an idea, and so the government is saying "look - we listened! Lots of parks!". When actually as much, if not more, of the "green city" argument was around sustainability in a broad context - public transport options so we can reduce a dependency on cars and a need for carparks; streets with a more human scale so that pedestrians and cyclists felt more comfortable; development of mixed-used 3-4 storey buildings that brought businesses, offices and residents together into a more sustainable community. Those points - arguably more important than "green space" (after all, it's not like Christchurch was lacking in green space in the central city *cough* Hagley Park *cough*) - have been left by the wayside somewhat.
-
I'd be happy to see the golf course go as part of a deal for the Oval. But they aren't proposing that. I love cricket, it is a great space to watch it. I don't have problems with cricket so much, but the blurb Canterbury Cricket sent out said that it wouldn't be closed off from the public very often - and then went on to list how great it would be as a space for ticketed concerts and events. Canterbury vs Wellington is all well and good, but A Day on The Green featuring Brooke Fraser and Skrillex is a different story.
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Emma Hart,
Lancaster Park is also just a short walk from the CBD, and could be a dedicated cricket ground. Once the stands are down you'd have a great view of the Port Hills. It's right next to the train line, if we ever get that going for public transport. It has history - Astle blasting 222 in a test against England springs to mind. And it doesn't involve fencing off part of Hagley Park. But no-one seems to want to talk about it.
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Peter Martin,
Woah, hold up. You know how you could avoid playing in 3 degrees? Play games in the afternoon. Oh, Sky won't let you? Then why the hell aren't they paying for the goddamn stadium, rather than ratepayers.
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Lilith __,
Wondering how many people in Share an Idea advocated for a covered stadium or Hagley Oval.
-
The Council annual plan 2012-13 announced a 7.5% rates rise in anticipation of having to pay for key projects: the stadium, part of the convention centre, replacement for QEII, art gallery repairs, town hall etc. I would expect that they will still be expected to pick up the tab for most of this. (Page 9 of this CCC Plan)
They've budgeted ~$200 million for an uncovered stadium, and expect $140 million in insurance. Will be interesting to see what sort of cost is forecast for a roof.