Saturday, August 22, 2015

Livable Cities

With apologies to my fellow No Minister bloggers for my recent lack of input ....

I have been observing the recent Herald propaganda regarding making Auckland "the most livable city" amongst the world stage and Comrade Brown's desire to spare no expense to push us up the rankings.

This is a load of extravegant socialist codswallop that we can ill afford.

The true approach is for us to make the most of our resources within our means.

We would then be happy with what we have achieved.

The socialist way is to make us feel inadequate by comparing us with the Jone's down the road and thus create a "need" that only they can fulfill.

Like a cat chasings its tail - we will never get there.

There will always be another need.


gravedodger said...

Interesting take Lou, the devolution of CBD activity that was forced on Christchurch in February 2011 has now resulted in many of the commercial entities that previously felt a need to be within the heart of the now long gone city, are now operating comfortably in suburban centres and new business parks in the vicinity of the Airport some kilometres to the west.
With modern adaption of the ether to aid communications and transactions in a modern commercial entity, there is a growing awareness of the salient fact that a CBD is no longer the meme and the deranged are slowly realising that their dream of a rebuilt CBD is a mirage.

Auckland geography will imho, be a driver of a similar revolution and squandering billions to prop up the failing model will only make such a realisation a longer and more painful process.

No one has ever given a cogent argument as to why Fonterra HO needs to be in The Auckland CBD when its production is not there, their shipping is elsewhere and their processing is very much provincial based. If access to an airport matters then why not Manakau City as a HO site, bet the rent would be lower.

Noel said...

Fonterra produced a PR burb in 2012 detailing why. Manukau is a lttle bit further than 300 metres radius from the existing building.

gravedodger said...

@ Noel, Your point being?

Noel said...

The doc is probably archived somewhere. Try Fonterra Hq or something similar.
From memory it listed all the reasons for the site, not just a demand for it to be no more than 300 metres from the existing site.