SkyscraperCity banner

1 - 20 of 572 Posts

·
Random
Joined
·
1,277 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Through a turn of events I've managed to secure a position at Len Brown's development workshop for a 30 year plan for Auckland, to be held on the 23rd of March. The day long event is broken into 5 workshops: Communities, Economy, Infrastructure, Physical Dimensions and Funding and Delivery. I've put myself down to attend the Infrastructure workshop.

Given this is the most Auckland centric virtual community of civic minded folk that I know I thought it would be valuable to hear from you all before I attend. My main intention is to speak on the issue that will most certainly define the next 30 years, both in Auckland and internationally: resource scarcity. The main considerations here is both how energy is expended in Auckland, especially transport, and how energy is supplied to the region. I've peppered my views on the issue throughout the forums over the past so won't repeat myself straight away.

I'm still in the preparation stage and would love to here any and all thoughts on anything that the community believes is of importance to planning for Auckland's infrastructure over the next 30 years. :cheers:
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
18,519 Posts
These long-term plans never work unless they are backed up by direct funding commitments. If I had a pound for every time Australia has failed to deliver on their infrastructure plans (especially Sydney) then I'd be a very, very rich man. Sure, ideologically they're nice as it's great to hear politicians say the right sort of thing, but without concrete funding they are not worth much.

Sorry to be a cynic, but I have seen too many plans come and go and of course, as soon as a new administration comes along there is no guarantee they'll honour the long-term infrastructure plan.
 

·
If seagulls could talk...
Joined
·
700 Posts
I visited HDB offices in Singapore several times in the 1990s to check our their 50 year masterplan. Each time i returned, more of it had been realized..and improved upon. So it can be done, and it's definitely something worth aiming for..

If the subject is resource scarcity, for god's sake don't mention any of the following:
- world hunger
- global warming
- war over water & food
- peak oil
While all are perfectly valid, people have just heard enough ranting.

I'd talk about the price of fish, petrol and electricity. Just discuss everything in pure Cost/Benefit terms. (costs to developers, tenants, etc...not "costs to society" or "Gaia."

When the Singapore Govt built it's MRT transit system, it didn't care about peak oil or carbon credits at all...only about the direct costs of travel time, road repairs, land and air pollution.
Will give you some actual ideas when i have had a chance to think! :)
 

·
Random
Joined
·
1,277 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
If the subject is resource scarcity, for god's sake don't mention any of the following:
- world hunger
- global warming
- war over water & food
- peak oil
While all are perfectly valid, people have just heard enough ranting.

I'd talk about the price of fish, petrol and electricity. Just discuss everything in pure Cost/Benefit terms. (costs to developers, tenants, etc...not "costs to society" or "Gaia."
Thanks for the feedback. I can assure you there is no chance I'd be mistaken for a dirty hippy.

I agree re most of those terms mentioned there, thou I'm surprised you believe people in policy circles are tired of hearing the term 'peak oil'. What makes you say that?

In my experience speaking to politicians on the matter they either defer to IEA estimates of the peak being 20 or 30 years off (even the IEA doesn't trust those numbers) or ignore the point and speak in cost/benefit terms. My feeling is they are not panicked so they obviously don't understand the ramifications.

My thoughts on infrastructure development to respond to the matter centre largely around public transport. As has been mentioned many a time before on these forums rail is the obvious main candidate for a transport alternative to cars. Trains and light rail can be powered by electricity generated by hydro/coal etc so largely immune to substantial gas price rises. Perhaps to some extent electric buses a la Wellington could also be employed. Increased urban density is also crucial to an energy efficient city but that discussion is outside the remit of the workshop, as is how that energy is supplied to Auckland city.

Regardless whatever is done the council will be far too late to offset the immediate impact of energy scarcity, the beginnings of which we are already seeing. More to the point I don't really believe the council or the government will even take the matter seriously until the situation is so dire it can not be ignored. Of course this approach defeats the purpose of planning entirely. Still better at least some people try to draw attention to the problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Lol I've read through it too. Hope Len Brown will have his way.

Wish the government doesn't shit all over his head, we need a visionary like him!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
In order to meet their basic responsibilities as a council, I imagine the majority of this document must be about how they're going to improve the efficiency of their basic services like waste management and drive economies out of the super city amalgamation to cut rates year on year. With maybe a small appendix about grand visions and iconic projects.

Yeah, right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,578 Posts
In order to meet their basic responsibilities as a council, I imagine the majority of this document must be about how they're going to improve the efficiency of their basic services like waste management and drive economies out of the super city amalgamation to cut rates year on year. With maybe a small appendix about grand visions and iconic projects.

Yeah, right.
Luckily we have a council who believes their role is more than just poo, trash and roads. Luckily we have an aspirational council, the old crustys and rustys who shared your views were thankfully sent packing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,316 Posts
In order to meet their basic responsibilities as a council, I imagine the majority of this document must be about how they're going to improve the efficiency of their basic services like waste management and drive economies out of the super city amalgamation to cut rates year on year. With maybe a small appendix about grand visions and iconic projects.

Yeah, right.
Yeah because focusing of sewage and rubbish alone will have people flocking to live in and visit Auckland. Great vision of what could be.
 

·
Retired
Joined
·
1,222 Posts
Yeah cause focusing of sewage and rubbish alone will have people flocking to live in and visit Auckland. Great vision of what could be.
Not that I disagree, however Id have thought that given the combination of the councils there should be some extreme efficiencies in services.. Recycling is something that isnt streamlined now (as to what you can recycle etc) which given our size is something that needs to be addressed asap..

But there is validity in that there needs to be some serious focus on growth which now it is all under the one banner can hopefully be streamlined and futureproofed.. Cant all be about the "glory" projects...
 

·
Dreams of Babylon Rising
Joined
·
8,848 Posts
i think we'll all be long dead before there is anything remotely close to what they want to achieve..

As much as I want something to happen. the reality is, nothing will happen unless some rich investors from china decide to throw money around..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
i think we'll all be long dead before there is anything remotely close to what they want to achieve..

As much as I want something to happen. the reality is, nothing will happen unless some rich investors from china decide to throw money around..
pg 26 outlines that they want a more 'business friendly city' hopefully this means chinese investment, and lots of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,316 Posts
Not that I disagree, however Id have thought that given the combination of the councils there should be some extreme efficiencies in services.. Recycling is something that isnt streamlined now (as to what you can recycle etc) which given our size is something that needs to be addressed asap..

But there is validity in that there needs to be some serious focus on growth which now it is all under the one banner can hopefully be streamlined and futureproofed.. Cant all be about the "glory" projects...
Totally agree essential services cannot be negelected as they are also part of what makes a city livable. There should be value for money and efficiency in how these are delivered. However the point I was making was that thinking this should be a council's sole focus is myopic and does nothing to increase the appeal of our city as a place for poeple to live or visit. Our city can be so much more than it currently is.
 

·
Random
Joined
·
1,277 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Funnily enough I wrote some of the chapters in the yet to be released draft waste plan. While not quite as bold as the Auckland Plan it argues for pretty significant change. Based on pretty robust and successful international waste strategies with the normative goal of zero waste.

As for the plan I think it's brilliant, I would never have expected an Auckland council would produce something of the sort even just a few years ago. Now to sit back and watch central government and nimby imbeciles try to smash it so far out of shape as to render it pointless. Still, we got this far, there is hope.

As for Mr Key' patronizing statements on the rail loop back by his "official" advice is that the emphasis on trains will only draw patronage away from buses. **** me, that is breath taking. Can anyone point out any case on the planet where such a scenario has ever eventuated? That's not even taking into account global trends that will significantly impact on usage. I honestly can't believe the National party are that crippled when it comes to basic logic or research. Cherry picking twits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
I hope your joking :eek:hno:
What's so wrong with Foreign money? Especially since most investment is from Australia and other European economies. The Chinese economy is our biggest oppurtunity market right now as we export many goods to them, and China would also want to tap into our economy as well.

Australia gets a lot of investment from China and they export billions of dollar in mineral wealth to the Chinese -- see how their Real GDP per capita is rising faster than New Zealand's?

New Zealand needs to be more friendlier in aspects as self-driven and foriegn investment in order to get ahead.

Where would you find money to fund these projects otherwise? The only other solution is investment from India. Do you want that? :eek:hno:
 
1 - 20 of 572 Posts
Top