Posts by TracyMac
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
After posting up my amateur shots, I'm really inspired by the article to do better! And that cafe con leche, please. :-)
-
And one last one, since we're talking oysters. Not so successful with the pic - it was in the middle of a backpackers - but it was really a perfect lunch, all from the Borough Market in London.
-
And coffee o'clock at Finc when they still had decent baristas.
-
Plate could be a bit tidier, and it is a bit top-down, but I think the lighting makes this one.
-
I agree with the equivalence of dinosaurs and sprawl. We're putting pressure on our arable land as it is, with stupid irrigation schemes in Canterbury as a glaring example. If housing is designed WELL, not just thrown up by some mickey-mouse builder who can draw a few boxes on a plan and use the cheapest materials, then greater density is definitely achievable.
I personally didn't have a problem living in terraced housing in London, but I did have a problem with the retrofitted three-story Victorian place I lived in. Upstairs flat were elephants and it turned out I was paying downstairs' power bill for nearly a year. So it needs to be done properly and it needs to be regulated AND inspected.
But if you DESIGN to minimise sound transmission and use decent materials, it is doable. And probably better than those hideous McMansions taking up 80%+ of the landarea, built with the lightest of materials, and with about a metre between your bedroom window and the neighbours' lounge.
Recently, I couldn't believe it when I looked at some newish apartments in Tory St in Wgtn - yes, double-glazing on the Tory St frontage itself, but the side with the alleyway by the pub only had single glazing. The master bedroom, no less. Uh, WTF? And for the price of it as well.
So, for denser housing, there should be standards about maximum noise transmission between party walls, floors above and below and from outside. And no, not by throwing wobblies after building a crappy development in the central city and forcing pubs that have been there for scores of years to close. Proper climate control, whether it's by air-conditioning (meh), or "green design" keeping the climate to a manageable level (equivalent to a single fan or heater per room to provide boosts at climactic extremes).
I personally don't care about "shoeboxes" in terms of size, because not everyone needs room to stash the same number of bookshelves I do. But there should be a mixture of sizes, with pricing to match - look at those majestic New York and London apartments (and some in Auck) where you could comfortably bring up a family in terms of space. If there is room for a kitchen with a stove and a fridge, a suitably-sized ablution area with proper shower and loo space, and room for a queen-sized bed plus a seating area as the minimum. So many washing machines per x residences, whether individual or in communal laundries (I've had good experiences when I lived in developments with the latter). No stupid rules about hanging washing out on balconies and the like, unless it's to say that nothing should overhang/encroach on neighbours, perhaps.
Per x landarea covered by whatever density, so much land to be set aside as a reserve (London's "garden squares" and parks make that city actually liveable in the areas properly supplied with them). Allotments/community gardens. Streets that can be properly navigated using public transport. I know there have been developments where that is simply not possible. Perhaps not all streets, if you want to have a pedestrianised feel, but no more than a couple of hundred metres or so to get to one.
People have alluded to Canberra's layout, but it differs from Twizel by way of the fact that those windy streets are arranged in a number of "pods" around the city. If you need something located in a different pod, try getting around without a car outside peak hour or not on a major bus route. If you have a well-serviced pod, it's all good.
-
Hard News: The Public Address Word of…, in reply to JackElder,
Jack, complety and utterly OT, but where do you get your tattoos done in Wgtn?
-
I loathed Clarkson when he was going on about black crippled lesbian mothers as a bit of a laff, and now that he's alienated a good chunk of his remaining constituency (despite their being commie union brethren), we can see who's laughing out of the other side of their face.
Also, for certain idiots who bitch about "pc gone mad" when it comes to exercising basic respect for each other, this is what comes round to bite you on the bum.
-
Hard News: Democracy Night, in reply to Kracklite,
Well, with neologisms like these, I hardly want to say I'm an authority (see above for some variations on shades of meaning other people get from the term), but it's certainly the feeling I get : "X should be like this; you're being (wilfully) ignorant if you think or act otherwise".
@Lucy, I don't disagree these people don't actually care so much about their audience, and it's definitely more about them, albeit dressed up as "concern". Although, again, I do think some do genuinely think what is best for them is best for other people.
The "trolling" part, other than people being deliberately vexatious (definintely the most obvious troll), I would also interpret as people who persistently and uncompromisingly seek to impose their opinion on others, even in forums where they have been told it's not welcome. People who refuse to listen or "agree to disagree" and keep banging their drum about their "concern", particularly when whatever-it-is has no actual impact on them personally. This is of course beyond the point of people having disagreeing points of view, but who can actually discuss them in a productive way beyond "I'm right and you're wrong".
-
Hard News: Democracy Night, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
While the term originated in web forums, it is not exclusive to them - I use it in real life all the time, and so do many people I know.
While the term can most definitely be about insincerity and sophism, it can also be about people who quite genuinely think that people who are doing X should really be doing Y instead, to "help themselves" (without bothering to expend any braincells on speculating WHY people might prefer to do X). So the advantage of using it is that you don't have to speculate about someone's motivations - it's about the effect the concern troll is having on their audience.
(I'll let Craig answer as to what he might think is underlying Winston's so-helpful comments)
-
Exactly. Yeah, thanks so much for your "help", dudes.
