Muse: Hooray for Wellywood (Really!)
187 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
It's unavoidable that anything the airport puts up will "brand the city" because the airport is how the majority of visitors arrive.
Mmhhh... no. People aren't dumb and generally they can tell an airport apart from the city it's in. But the Wellywood sign doesn't make a statement about the airport, it makes a statement about the city. (And on top of that, the visitors that it's aimed that are unlikely to even know that it's on airport land.)
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Is this the kind of coffee we want to brand our city with?
If the two of you are so adamant there's some sort of analogy here, start a campaign. I'll be interested to see how many people agree with you.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
If the two of you are so adamant there’s some sort of analogy here, start a campaign. I’ll be interested to see how many people agree with you.
And another desk goes to furniture heaven...
-
Sacha, in reply to
communally driven fashion sense? To me, it's school uniforms all over again.
Uniforms are imposed, not chosen collectively. Those who have to wear the things seldom get any say - so perhaps not the example you were looking for.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Is this the kind of coffee we want to brand our city with?
Is it called "WelliCoffee"? Tagline "absolutely positively beany"?
Didn't think so. -
giovanni tiso, in reply to
And another desk goes to furniture heaven...
Seriously: if you can't see how Starbucks opening its shops in town and the airport putting up a huge sign that names the whole city aren't the same thing, I can't help you or your furniture. I'd add to the bung analogy that you can exercise more of a right of dissent with Starbucks by refusing to patronise it, as most people seem to be doing. Whereas the airport has a monopoly on civil aviation.
-
(And if you still wanted to pursue it, hell, I'm not even against it. And it's been done before. When McDonald's opened in the cathedral square in Milan, it was allowed to but couldn't use its ordinary signage, on account of the fact that it was too loud and brand-y. I assume this has happened elsewhere as well.)
-
BenWilson, in reply to
But the Wellywood sign doesn't make a statement about the airport, it makes a statement about the city.
Does it? I thought it was talking about Peter Jackson's studio suburb, rather like the Hollywood sign doesn't represent the entire city of Los Angeles.
People aren't dumb and generally they can tell an airport apart from the city it's in
So what's the problem then? People will see it doesn't represent Wellington. Or are you using the word "brand" in a different sense, like the marks they put on cattle?
If the two of you are so adamant there's some sort of analogy here, start a campaign. I'll be interested to see how many people agree with you.
No, I'm happy to just make my point to anyone who can see the analogy, which is quite a straightforward one. You're bitter on a prominent brand shown prominently. Why is Starbucks different? Or if it's about the "Welly" bit, what's the difference with it an all the signage for "Kiwiburgers"? They "brand" the entire country, in the sense you seem to be using the term. So what? It's advertising and it's tacky, and no-one is fooled even if you put an egg in it.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Does it? I thought it was talking about Peter Jackson's studio suburb, rather like the Hollywood sign doesn't represent the entire city of Los Angeles.
Wellywood refers to Wellington, not to Miramar. Not unlike Bollywood.
Otherwise it'd be called Mirawood, no? Or Hollymar or some such.
So what's the problem then? People will see it doesn't represent Wellington.
How will people see that? People I think will naturally assume that it's how Wellingtonians have decided to market their city.
You're bitter on a prominent brand shown prominently. Why is Starbucks different? Or if it's about the "Welly" bit, what's the difference with it an all the signage for "Kiwiburgers"? They "brand" the entire country, in the sense you seem to be using the term. So what? It's advertising and it's tacky, and no-one is fooled even if you put an egg in it.
Wellywood is not marketing a product - it's marketing the city. The city doesn't belong to the airport. This stuff doesn't seem to be particulaly difficult to grasp - is it just me?
-
Sacha, in reply to
Wellywood is not marketing a product - it's marketing the city. The city doesn't belong to the airport. This stuff doesn't seem to be particulaly difficult to grasp - is it just me?
Seems clear to me, for one.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Wellywood refers to Wellington, not to Miramar. Not unlike Bollywood.
You might be right. Do you have anything to prove that is the intention of the sign? Isn't it actually quite close to Miramar?*
Otherwise it'd be called Mirawood, no? Or Hollymar or some such.
It's not my joke. But "Hollywood in Wellington" is the very first thing that jumped to my mind not "Wellington is Hollywood".
How will people see that? People I think will naturally assume that it's how Wellingtonians have decided to market their city.
By the same process as when you said:
People aren't dumb and generally they can tell an airport apart from the city it's in.
Edit: OK, so I checked. So far as I can tell, the sign will actually be in Miramar.*
Edit: I checked again, and now confess I don't actually know where it will be.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
By the same process as when you said:
People aren't dumb and generally they can tell an airport apart from the city it's in.
Nobody has a problem with the Wild at Heart campaign because it clearly refers to the airport. The Wellywood sign doesn't refer to the airport at all - it doesn't even attempt to. So I think people are going to be confused. And they are going to assume that it's an initiative that was properly cleared by a representative body - on the basis that who else would bother to promote the city but the city itself? I think that's why people mind it. Not just because it's cringeworthy and dumb, but primarily because it claims to represent us but was foisted upon us.
-
Tim Hannah, in reply to
How will people see that? People I think will naturally assume that it’s how Wellingtonians have decided to market their city.
By the same process as when you said:
People aren’t dumb and generally they can tell an airport apart from the city it’s in.
The hillside it's planned to be on isn't within any visible airport boundary, it's separated from the airport by a decent sized (by our standards) road and no one looking at it is going to be able to tell it's an airport sign.
People can tell the airport terminal from the city, they can tell the runways from the city, they may not be able to tell the bit of airport owned but unlabelled land in the middle distance from the city.
I suspect if I was a visitor, I'd assume it was a Wellington city sign. I'd rather visitors didn't think that.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Being a petty bourgeois twit, I was bemused (and horrified) that Starbucks opened their first New Zealand offence against good taste on Lambton Quay -- almost literally a stone's throw from a dozen or more superlative cafes. I'm not so sure that reflects badly on anyone or anything other than Restaurant Brands and their customers.
That shop is now a Mojo outlet (thank heavens).
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Edit: I checked again, and now confess I don't actually know where it will be.
It will be in Miramar.
-
Tom Beard, in reply to
One thing that doesn't sit well with me, on principle, is that the resource consent for this was non-notifiable.
Question with two follow ups -
1) How difficult would it be to change the law so every resource consent application has to be notifiable?
2) Is there any party out there whose policy supports such a change?
3) Are there any good arguments against?I'll only answer 3 by saying: yes, lots. The "notification" process doesn't just involve letting people know about it and asking for their submissions: it requires a hearing, a panel of commissioners and the possibility of appeals, mediation and Environment Court action. It's expensive, time consuming, legalistic and involves huge uncertainty, all of which is hugely over the top for most consents.
One of the worst effects of this is that even when Councils have the discretion to look at a proposal qualitatively and holistically, it gives an incentive for applicants to dumb down proposals to meet quantitative and simple-minded notification triggers. For instance, they'll get the designer to arbitrarily lop off bits of the roof to meet recession planes, resulting in designs that are ugly, ridiculous and less in keeping with the neighbourhood than if the planners & urban designers had been able to advocate for a nuanced reading of the District Plan.
Another aspect is that it brings out the worst and most prejudiced aspects of NIMBYism: people who would not be materially affected by a proposal but just don't want any more people in their suburb or who mutter darkly about "the wrong sort of people". Unless they're familiar with the arcana of the RMA, they'll get confused by the terminology and get false expectations of the submission process. One example is the technical use of the word "permitted", which often leads to submitters getting outraged when decisions go against them ("OMG how can you give consent when the Plan bans it?!?"). Some also think that submissions are some sort of vote, but even if the submissions are 99-1 against, if the anti-submissions don't make reasonable arguments that granting the consent would be against the objectives of the plan then there is no reason to decline it. And when notification thresholds are much lower than the level of development anticipated by the plan, and the commissioners quickly approve a development despite what the submitters say, those submitters can rightly assume that the hearing process was a waste of their and everyone else's time. In short, would-be submitters have unrealistic expectations of the influence that the notification process would grant to them, without realising the perverse incentives towards mediocre developments that comply with the letter of the plan but don't achieve the overall objective of making a better city.
Finally, and this might be controversial, I believe there's a fundamental difference between urban design and planning, at least as the latter is seen under the RMA. Urban design aims for the long-term outcome of a beautiful, sustainable and liveable city, for all who live there, visit there or may live there in the future. RMA planning is about letting landowners build what they want on their land unless they piss off the neighbours. Sure, there are good reasons for preserving reasonable levels of amenity for existing residents, but the process as it is encourages petty, short-term, prejudiced and parochial thinking.
Having said that, I think there is a role for more public involvement in the consent process, but not through the current notification provisions. Currently, almost all resource consents are public information (so "non-notified" doesn't mean "sneaky and secret"), but there is no mechanism to allow for public input without involving the hugely cumbersome hearing process. I would like to see a process whereby the public are invited to make written submissions, which the planners have to take into account in their decision. Again, this would not be a vote, but would allow people to point out information and effects that officers might have missed, or to make cogent arguments for or against the proposal. Large consents, or those that breach District Plan standards to the extent that they are non-complying, would still be able to trigger a full hearing, but there needs to be a lightweight intermediate step.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
I suspect if I was a visitor, I'd assume it was a Wellington city sign. I'd rather visitors didn't think that.
Yes. It occcurs to me that maybe that's what might confuse people who don't live in Wellington about this? The place where the sign will be shown is not physically part of the airport at all - it's just that the airport happens to own the land.
-
OK, located it on streetview..So it's on the corner of Miramar Avenue? As in, like a big sign as you enter Miramar? As in, a sign telling you something about Miramar?
-
Sacha, in reply to
confess I don't actually know where it will be
There are plenty of photos. It will be visible from planes landing and taking off and from surrounding suburbs. Mirimar is *behind* the hill it is on, though the surburb's visitors and residents are not really it's intended audience.
-
Sacha, in reply to
As in, a sign telling you something about Miramar?
No. Don't waste our time.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
OK, located it on streetview..So it's on the corner of Miramar Avenue? As in, like a big sign as you enter Miramar? As in, a sign telling you something about Miramar?
It's the road entry to Miramar but it's the air route entry to the city. And really, it's about the city. Ask yourself why in the world would the airport bother to promote Miramar. And it's not as if the good people of that suburb were asked for their opinion either. But everybody understands the sign's about Wellington. Even John Key, judging by his comments.
-
Tim Hannah, in reply to
You might think it’s just about Miramar, but most of it’s supporters claim it’s about promoting Wellington as a tourist destination, most of it’s detractors think it’s reflecting on Wellington as a whole.
You might not be wrong, but you are almost certainly in a minority.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
You might not be wrong, but you are almost certainly in a minority.
I guess I'm happy in that place. I'm not a supporter, either. To me it's mostly about property rights. If enough people are bitter on it, then that's a reason to override those rights, and it would be politic to do that anyway for most businesses. But I am rather interested that such a furore has been created over it which seems to override all sense and intentions. It doesn't seem to matter to anyone what it was intended to signify. Wellingtonians clearly feel that they get to decide what the meaning of the sign is.
-
I bet that if someone pasted on your forehead a sticker saying THE WILSONATOR you might feel invested in deciding what it means as well.
-
Tim Hannah, in reply to
If the sign doesn’t signify to most people what it was intended to signify then that’s a failure of design and a reason to come up with a less easily misread signifier, surely?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.