Posts by Ed Muzik
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
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.
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Tim Croft,
If you want light rail in the long term, you could do worse than lobbying CERA / the council to stop consenting subdivisions further and further out into the plains
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Tim Croft,
The $400 million figure comes from the ... council. And it's for one line. To do a full network would be close to $2 billion. That's from their figures. I like trains, I'd love to see them in Christchurch. But they only work if there is a network of them, if you can get from one place to another. Running a line from the CBD (where no-one lives) to the airport, through Christchurch's most affluent suburbs is nice-to-have project for a demographic who already benefit most from council services.
If it doesn't stack up economically - like the stadium - then I don't think the council should be having to fork out for it.
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Emma Hart,
The light rail plan really was a joke - 400 million dollars for one line from the CBD to university, which is currently a lovely, fifteen minute bike through parks. They should be working on putting passengers back on the main rail lines - but no mention of that in this or the transport plan. They'll now argue that the "core" is too far from the railway line.
-
As someone who lived right in the middle of the CBD - my old flat will now be part of the frame - I have a few objections. I've been given a bit of stick on twitter for being negative about Christchurch in the last few weeks, but I can't help it if it doesn't inspire me. An obvious push is for sports - the covered stadium, the metro sports hub (ie QEII) and the development of Hagley Oval are all controversial projects. The oval plan will see part of the city's best asset be fenced off for the private benefit of cricket fans and broadcasters. The metro sports hub is a replacement for QEII, which was the only major council facility in the city's north-east, and will now be located in the south-west of the CBD.
The stadium is an incredibly controversial decision, one that has divided opinion in the city, and has now been forced upon us. The major issue is around funding - as the Dunedin stadium has shown, these things can be a complete disaster for the ratepayers who pick up the tab. The City Council rejected a covered stadium in their draft city plan for exactly this reason - only for the government to announce that its exactly what they plan to do. While the costings haven't been announced yet, I believe that the government expects the council to pick up the tab for what will be a council asset. Even if the government does announce that they will fund the whole thing, I can think of a dozen better ways to spend the $200 million plus that a 35,000 -seat covered stadium will cost. How about housing for 35,000 people? It may not grab the headlines in the same way - but it would deliver predictable rents, something that a government of "sound economic managers" seem to keen to ignore.
The other problem with the stadium is the location. It's crazy. Yes, the Turners and Growers site is largely empty, but the block north and the block south both have working businesses on them. Many of these businesses have moved into spaces in this area since the quake - C4 coffee, the public art gallery's Outer Spaces project, a new bar by the owners of the Brewery in Woolston which is due to open this month. These business owners have been doing their best to keep going in the post-quake era, and have made deliberate decisions to try and continue in the CBD. How are they rewarded? By having their operations ceased through compulsory acquisition by CERA.
I like the idea of the Frame. Seems like a good way to artificially condense space and drive compact development. I like it so much that I'd consider moving into or building next to the frame (if I could afford to). Surely I'm not the only one who thinks that way. But the stadium butts up against the frame - three blocks of it. Three blocks of what would be prime residential, north-west facing land, I would think. Just seems like a great way to depress development in what should be one of the best locations in town.
-
It hasn't been a good year for democracy fans in Christchurch - first ECan, then this. And now that the election has not been delayed, there will be very major issues with the campaign. I am running for community board, and we had 9 meet the candidate meetings / mayoral forums set up, from last week till the close of polls. All have been cancelled. So while Bob Parker tells us he's too busy to campaign, whilst spending hours a day fronting for the cameras for whatever reason, the public have had almost all chance of local democratic interaction stripped from them. I would like to think that people are engaged with the political process, I really would; but sub-40% turnouts would suggest that it was a struggle at the best of times, and it certainly isn't the best of times down here right now.
-
Here's the new Ed Muzik music video. sounds good with or without the Vuvezela button.
-
While I know that it's not really the point of the argument ... can I say that the MGMT album isn't really worth getting worked up about? I mean, the singles are quite good - "Time to Pretend" and "Weekend Wars" do an adequate job - and "Kids" is one of the best songs of the year, but the rest is really a forgettable mess. Nice enough to listen to, but you'll find yourself skipping to the big tunes after a few listens as the stuff in between gets too much. Or maybe not. I could be wrong. I often am.
My personal solution to the issue of rewarding artists, or at least feeling like you are, by buying their stuff is to get it on vinyl. So I'll usually download stuff when it comes out, and listen to it a bit to see whether it sinks or swims. If it swims, I'll pop down to Galaxy Records and get Dave to order it in for me. Most big indie (is that an oxymoron?) records these days will come out on vinyl - so I've got things like the Arcade Fire, the Shins, Juan Maclean, LCD Soundsystem and Of Montreal this way. Still waiting for Hercules and Love Affair to get a vinyl release though... They usually cost about $40, but given the superiority of vinyl, it's not much more than a crappy CD. Then I take the vinyl home, leave it untouched (as i currently don't own a record player!) and continue to listen to it on my iPod or computer from the initial download. Also, most of the records I have got recently actually come with a download ticket, so you can have a legal, high quality download of the album, erase any torrented version on your computer, as well as any remaining guilt.
-
what were you doing in CHCH with students Russell? Why wasn't I informed?
-
ok, so my 'brief' look actually took a while and Stephen answered your question while I was writing it!
What's interesting about research like this - and there will only be more of it in the future - is the way that the popular press reports it as 'rascist'. It's not, it's science. Objective science, if done properly, has no views on anything. It's the interpretation - usually by the very same media - that makes it rascist or not.
But now we're totally off topic. Sorry...