Posts by Tom Beard
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Thanks for the links, Kerry. There are no doubt plenty of things wrong with the proposal, including the fundamental problem that it's based on the idea that more prison space is a good thing. But a lot of the reaction is based on something like "OMG containers, WTF?", when internationally the concept of repurposing redundant containers for housing is no longer seen as crazy, demeaning or avant garde, but as a practical and flexible solution worthy of further investigation.
-
Yes that my point. New Zealand prisons have symbolic meaning, that is entirely different to industrial equipment, such as trains ships and storage yards.
To me, typical NZ prisons (as opposed to Olde Worlde Mt Eden style), with their scattering of low-rise sheds surrounded by fences, have a lot in common with stock yards, in keeping with our agricultural past. Combine with the word "muster" and you get an image that's at least as disturbing as ships and trains.
-
It would make a lot more sense to build them for purpose 2 in the first place. If you want to build modular prison cells, do a decent job and design it properly and build it from raw materials without the intervening step of turning it into a container and putting it on a ship with a pile of stuff in it numerous times.
Except that there is already a huge, well-established industry in place for making shipping containers, with all the economies of scale that that implies, not to mention the fact that in NZ we get them well below cost (as I said earlier). It would indeed be great to have an industry that makes cost-effective modular housing for a range of needs, but at the moment a bit of creative up-cycling is a good option.
Shipping containers are loaded with symbolic meaning.
As opposed to, say, prisons?
I don't see any problem as using them for housing in general, let alone prisons. As I said, I've seen container houses that looked more liveable than many of the London flats I had lived in at the time, and just as good as what seem to me to be very reasonable apartments in NZ.
-
Containers are not cheap[ and we need them to import the goods we need to spend our way out of the economic downturn.
I've heard that containers are unusually cheap in NZ, for the rather sad reason that we import more containerised goods than we export, so it's not economic to ship them back to their origins.
-
The Fish has another take on it.
I've seen studio apartments made from containers, such as at Container Wharf in East London, and they can actually be wonderful places to live. The problem with this proposal is not that it would be cruel, but that to bring them up to minimum standards would require skills far beyond a bit of DIY, so the concept of "crims building their own cells" is meaningless.
Not having had a chance to read beyond the one-note headlines yet, I'm not sure just how serious or detailed a plan is actually being considered. But if using containers as the starting point for modular cell units ends up being feasible and cheaper than building them from scratch, then why not?
-
Does the Party need to be one central place? Why not have two or three centres and at least 2 could have big screens?
Probably not: even in Wellington, we've tended to have screens at both Queens Wharf and Courtenay Place. In Auckland, which is bigger & less centralised, that approach could work even better. But there are probably good sponsorship & other reasons for one primary location.
-
Here in Dunedin we have many small private establishments that already provide these services for free - we call them "bars"
And part of the problem with downtown Auckland is that there's no concentrated cluster of bars with adjoining large public space that is either pedestrianised or can be pedestrianised for an event. That's presumed neccesary fo rthis sort of event, as there would be far too many fans to fit in the existing bars, and they want to put up a giant screen to show the games.
The Viaduct has plenty of bars, but it sounds like the public space isn't adequate. Aotea Square might be large enough, but has no adjacent bars. There are good bars throughout the city in places like Vulcan Lane, High/O'Connell St, K Rd and occasionally west of Queen St, but they're scattered, without large public spaces or closable streets, and aren't the typical destinations for rugby fans (which is probably why I know them).
In Wellington we have Courtenay Place, and despite it being avoided by all right-thinking Wellingtonians, it can be closed off and makes a natural destination for big events. But as an entertainment precinct it has evolved over the last couple of decades, and is surrounded by a lot of other uses that means it's lively even when it isn't "party central". Whether you can create such a precinct from scratch in a couple of years, and maintain its viability once the scrums have departed, is a big question.
-
Given the logical and linguistic inanities of the question, I can understand the desire not to give oxygen to the morons who came up with that oxymoron. However, while a "yes" vote seems nonsensical if you believe that a smack is by definition not part of good parenting, consider working backwards from the opposite:
- voting "no" means that "a smack as part of good parental correction" should not be an offence;
- which means that "a smack as part of good parental correction" is okay;
- which would require "a smack as part of good parental correction" to be a logically valid concept.Hence, while voting "yes" may seem like buying into the stupidity, it can also be seen as a stern statement against the very premise. I wish one didn't have to perform such acrobatics to feel comfortable with voting yes, but anything else (including abstaining and spoiling) risks a win for the smack-happy fundies.
-
Only vaguely related, but a great big WTF?: apparently 'Women can't write about sex'
-
we should really be comparing penises with vulvas.
Jpgs pls. But wait until I'm no longer at work.