Response to the stadium decision
So I think we’re all breathing a collective sigh of relief that plans for the controversial waterfront stadium have been dropped, but the dramas are not over by any means. Now Eden Park and the government are putting pressure on the Auckland Regional Council to contribute to the Eden Park upgrade, and the Auckland City Council is threatening not to contribute unless the ARC does. Toys flying out of cots all over the place.
Needless to say, Keith is pleased at the decision after the work he has been doing with Rodney Hide for the last fortnight or so to oppose the waterfront stadium, but these latest developments are cause for concern.
Anyone else get the sense that there might be a larger agenda at play here? Namely that making the ARC pay for some of the upgrade could force them to increase their rates, which would (understandably) annoy ratepayers and play into the hands of those advocating a centralised Auckland council? Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think there could be something there.
November 28th, 2006 at 8:05 pm
I disagree. As a Green voter in the last election I am somewhat pissed off that the Greens have helped derailed the Waterfront Stadium. This type of project would have helped make Auckland a more centralised, interesting city. Centralised cities are always good for the promotion of public transport and make for a city where walking and cycling are more attractive options. It is likely that had the waterfront stadium been built most visitors would have arrived by public transport, as it would have only required 1 trip from anywhere in Auckland. That is not true of the suburban Kingsland location, where as most Aucklanders will require 2 trips, will probably opt to drive instead.
The Eden Park upgrade will cost a fortune at any rate, for a 3rd rate location…it seems that on this issue the Green party were prepared to allow an excellent opportunity to centralise go by for a few cheap political points.
November 28th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
How about providing free buses and trains to Eden Park on big match days?
Special bus routes?
November 28th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
I’m with you nickster. My comments when Frog posted about it initially were ignored.
Transport considerations, longivity, and residual value in Eden Park were (are) clear reasons for the waterfront stadium if a binary choice is asked for…
November 28th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
Seriously Prim?
60,000 crowd, say 50% arrive by public transport. How many busses are needed for 30,000? 300 minimum, and all within an hour of eachother.
Not an option.
A waterfront option would have given public transport a chance. Eden Park does not.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
mikeymike -
I had not considered numbers, but quickly put the suggestion out there as one potential way of *alleviating* the transport issue. It was a constructive suggestion. Without wanting to get drawn into a lengthy debate on this, a few notes below.
You didn’t include trains … these I think are much better people movers than buses?
How many buses could arrive or depart Eden Park each minute? If they go to & from central drop-off points (like St Lukes/major shopping centres) rather than following normal routes - could this increase their rate.
It’s probably time for Auckland to get more creative with public transport anyway, rather than it being totally focussed on the CBD.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
You’re right about that Prim. More creative by multiples. And trains sure are the better option.
Busses would only work if you’ve got serious amounts of people using the train. Otherwise you’re left with the all to familiar pre/post match mayhem - with the added bonus of hordes of diesel chugging bohemuths.
Regardless, it simply does not make sense to provide train infrastructure with the capacity needed for a venue of international stndard. You improve a station to where it serves say 20,000 people (at best?) maybe once every three weeks on average.
What happens the rest of the time? Mt Eden becomes a haven for derelicts (a bad joke, but I think you see what I mean). I’d be really interested (and I dont live in Akl) to know what improvements ARC are planning for rail infrastructure.
Anyway, I’d just like someone to provide informed comment on whether if the waterfront had been chosen, the Eden Park admin could have moved to w’front - freeing up a sale of Eden Park assets to offset the cost of w’front development.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
I agree with Prim, buses could definately do it, I fail to see how 300 buses in an hour is a problem, it is trivial to have priority lanes (and parking) for buses - the idea of using mall car parks for park and rides is brilliant. But proper trains could do it too, (as I experienced at Sydney 2000).
If there are funding issues with Eden Park, and a mega stadium is inappropriate for Mt Eden, then how about we scale back the plans and get the price back down. Build temporary stands and don’t chuck the cricket out and have to pay $20 million compensation to them. 10-15000 less people to move. Have big TV screens at other locations.
Then having saved hundreds of millions, maybe in the future we can build a brand new mega stadium somewhere, at a location that doesn’t have anything else and needs redevelopment, doesn’t need massive land reclamation or require massive compensation, doesn’t have residents to worry about and is close to a railway line, and we can take our time getting the plans right.
November 29th, 2006 at 12:10 am
Prim MikeyMike
how does this all compare with the new downtown Vancouver waterfront stadium of 33,000 people with only 150 parking spaces, the rest are to walk, take the sky train, busses, water taxi and other public transport.
So when I read the SST in the weekend to see a huge add for the Marsden Marina. I thought we were connecting to the waterfront.
But further how does the Greens let this dvelopment IN THE MIDDLE OF AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT become the battle cry for our connection to the water when Hooper Development are building no less than 6 marina urban developements all over the north of the north island in usually pristine areas.
Lets compare the two images.
One an imposing non connecting blight on the water.(stadium NZ)
http://www.warrenandmahoney.com/StadiumNZ_images/SNZ-Sketch-Captain-Co ok-Wharf.jpg
And this for those who want a more urban lifestyle 1.8hrs from Auckland (well stay in the bloody city then)
http://www.coastalnz.co.nz/marsdencove/artists_impression.htm
Sorry, but I voted green last election, but if this sort of hypocracy is going to go unaccounted for, I’m going back to voting Alliance.
November 29th, 2006 at 9:01 am
It is the case: The Greens have an amazing propensity to be on the wrong side of issues. It makes no sense. At least with most of the other parties you know what you’re getting, with the Greens they’re always out to surprise and flabbergast.
In terms of the stadia - Now we are not geting a new iconic NZ stadium, I’m with the “least cost” approach to patch up Eden Park as little as possible whilst still meeting comittments. Being not-in-Auckland, I’m not falling over myself to help fund a local rugby ground. Especially since my local ground, Jade, reckon they can do the same thing for under a hundred mill.
November 29th, 2006 at 10:12 am
Compie said:
Sorry, but I voted green last election, but if this sort of hypocracy [sic] is going to go unaccounted for…
What hypocrisy? The Greens have consistently opposed inappropriate subdivisions and developments on our coastline, including marinas - check out Metiria Turei’s speech in Parliament on the one proposed for Whangamata.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:10 am
It is hypocracy because the Greens opposition to inapporpriate subdivisions has been rather quiet, whereas the stadium was picked out as a key issue. It is especilly hypocritical because the stadium would have been a public use venue for all to enjoy. Inappropriate subdivision locks up land in private use, for none to enjoy except the owners of the land. As it happens unless you happen to be a Port of Auckland employee or contractor, we are all locked out to the land in question for the forseeable future.
As far as the earlier discussion about transport goes: Prims idea for special buses to Eden Park is an excellent one, except I guarantee Aucklanders just won’t take them, as it would be seen as too difficult in the eyes of most. The only way to get Aucklanders to take buses is if it is an easier option than driving and then parking i.e: the waterfront. But not to be so alas we Aucklanders will all continue to live in a city that seems to model itself on Los Angeles rather than a smaller version of Vancouver or Sydney.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:41 am
i’m baffled by the greens approach. sure, i can understand the “due process” argument, but this has been an exceptional situation in need of a more forceful leadership approach. the govt had been doing their homework on a waterfront option as soon as nz was awarded hosting rights.
there seems to have been very little (public at least) discussion of life cycle costing for each option (incorporating residual value of a phased out eden park).
i know i’m flogging a dead horse, but the shortsightedness of a green position founded on process rather than a more classical view of sustainability is baffling.
dbuckley, i hear your sentiment that a “least cost” option is appropriate now. in considering least cost we must also consider that nz will want to host other major sporting events in the future. so if its a (reduced) $100m to patch up for eden park in order to meet minimum requirements, then thats simply good money following bad.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:56 am
nickster said: It is hypocracy because the Greens opposition to inapporpriate subdivisions has been rather quiet…
Rather quiet??? As well as Metiria’s speech in Parliament that I referred to above, this year there has been this media release from Jeanette Fitzsimons, and this one, and this interview with her on the coastal subdivision/marina issue. I’d say coastal subdivisio has also been “picked out” for special attention on that basis.
Might have appeared quiet in the media, but its their call which Green media releases get carried and which ones don’t. Just a pity the media don’t give the coastal subdivision issue, which is really much more important than where some rugby stadium goes, at least the same amount of attention.
November 29th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
mikeymike said:
the shortsightedness of a green position founded on process rather than a more classical view of sustainability is baffling.
For Greens, process is as important as outcome. There are four founding Charter Principles on which Green thinking is based - ecological sustainability, social justice, appropriate decision-making, and non-violence. Green opposition to the waterfront stadium was based primarily on the appropriate decision-making principle - Government giving a TLA and a Regional Council just two weeks to make a decision on the waterfront proposal, with a paucity of detail of the proposal, and no formal process for public input is simply not acceptable.
There are, no doubt, arguments both for and against the waterfront stadium proposal based on the ecological sustainability and social justice principles - but without appropriate process, it is impossible to properly develop those arguments so as to properly make a decision.
November 29th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
i hear you toad. but…
by holding process as paramount, many other aspects of sustainability have been expended with (and accordingly, many other aspects of the charter).
the w’front proposal had democratic process - true, not an ideal level of process, but as i said above it was “an exceptional situation in need of a more forceful leadership approach”.
i believe that the “more forceful leadership approach” taken gave some crucial sustainability objectives a look in. by ditching the w’front we have consigned nz to a less sustainable solution.
in a neo-liberal economy sustainability will always be considered by balancing influences and objectives. this is a classic example. to place one particular sustainability objective (perfect process) above others is contradictory to the concept itself.
November 29th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
Mikeymike, I’m not asserting that any one of the Green Principles should be placed above the others - they are of equal importance, and on occasion a balance must be struck between them.
What I’m saying is that with the waterfront stadium issue, the “more forceful leadership approach” never permitted us to have a proper debate on the sustainability issue, because there was too little information available upon which to base the debate, too little time for the debate to take place, and no process to carry out the debate in.
At the end of the day, given a proper process, the waterfront option may have been shown to be the more sustainable. So might Eden Park - I can see some obvious advantages in a major stadium being sited where trains and buses go past, rather than where train bus routes terminate.
Given the process that was adopted, and the inability to hold a proper debate on the sustainability issue within the timeframe imposed, I think the decision-makers were right to decide upon the more cautious option, which was Eden Park.
November 29th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
if the problem was really the process, not the actual location, why wasn’t Keith campaigning for us to go through the process correctly, rather than campaigning with Rodney to to oppose the waterfront stadium?
November 29th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
I am still recovering from the shock that I agreed with Keith Locke on something!
November 29th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
Mikeymike: My argument for “least cost” is that Eden Park will never be a great stadium, merely a stadium with a great history in a less than optimal location. This row has gone away for the next few years, while we’re all looking forward to a great world cup. But I dont think it’s dead forever.
Cytochem: on the nail. I never understood how the Greens came to their position in the first place (and said as much on the earlier thread), and it looks like the basis for a position was based on trying to find something to hang a position (any position?) on, and making a mess of it. Fortunately, its now just water under the bridge… Having ranted thus, though, in reality an extended process wasn’t on the table, so of the options available, I still maintain that no opinion would be better than a flawed opinion, and especially, what in my (and many others) opinion was the wrong position, and worse than that, for the wrong reasons.
November 29th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
I look forward to watching the All Blacks in the 2011 RWC final, I am sure that I will be able to get good seats and accommodation will not be a problem as I have a good friend who lives in Sydney.
I just wish that the NZRU would avoid a another embarrassing stuff up and tell the IRB that we cannot and never will be able to organise this bloody thing.
I am sure as hell not going to contribute to a stadium in Auckland without a bloody good scrap, once the polls start to show Klarke that the public are not keen on funding Eden park you can be sure that she will back away at a rapid rate of knots as well.
The whole thing is going to end in tears.
November 29th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Oh God, the so the issue was “process”, not whether the stadium was the right think to do. Well, heaven preserve us. An democratically elected Government asked two democratically elected local bodies to decide which options to proceed with (note proceed). It also promised to respect those bodies’ decision. Rather than investigate the issues or let the local bodies decide the Greens, along with National and Hide decided they would to their utmost to remove the decision making process friom these elected bodies.
Way to go guys.
November 29th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
I think it is a real shame that the waterfront stadium is not going ahead, for a number of reasons.
- As mentioned by a previous poster, the impact on the Auckland city fabric would be highly positive. From an urban design perspective the proposal would have generated a lot of street-level activity and opened up a prime area for public use. On the other hand, the Eden Park proposal will just contribute to the continuing urban fragmentation of Auckland.
- I liked the concept of a waterfront icon, and I dug the design. Sue me!
- MOST IMPORTANTLY: Warren and Mahoney have a real commitment to environmentally sustainable design. This project has such a high profile, and represented an excellent chance for the government to show real leadership in commissioning a building that embodies real, workable low-energy concepts. That chance has been lost, and it is sad.
DenMT
(PS Big Bruv - such patriotism.)
November 29th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
Toad,
at least I will give a big up to the Greens for at least hosting this forum. The ARC were no better than dictators on this one.
But if anyone has been following regional politics, the ARC really does see itself above and beyond the city council or all other councils in the area. They have a cartel to protect and my god they were going to protect it come hell or high water.
OK fine, so Metiria and Jeanette put out press statements, nice. Where is the media hyped passion that we were seeing on the telly the other day.
Actually part of the problem is the hypocrisy of people like Tessa Duder and the ARC and that bloody idiot the head of the Institute of Architects, all shirt tailing on this, each bemoaning the loss of the ‘connection’ with the waterfront. Tiddums, it’s a bloody wharf now and will be for the next 30 years if Aucklands inability to do anything other than build roads is to go by.
The Waterfront stadium should have gone ahead regardless of the stadium. Eden park should have had temp seating (and still should), and the waterfront developed later.
We’re having this debate here in Dunedin at the moment, thankfully the NIMBYs and the nay sayers are just the loopy councilors that we expect this from and the ratepayers association. I love the way these councilors and pressure groups claim to speak for us.
The difference down here is that we realise the old ugly wharf is not a connection to the water, that with the University operating the Physical Education school within the building itself, this will be a living environment.
But just wait, if he is consistent I would like to see Keith down here with his merry band of NIMBYs.
Go on be consistent, get Keith in a tent protesting Hooper developments or even better, he better be on telly steaming and frothing over the development planned for Ngunguru. Fo that matter so should Ms Duder and Dian Brand and the New Zealand Institute of Architects.
Still voting green but boy is my alegiance being pushed.
November 29th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
DenMT
A patriot I am, a flag waver I am not.
November 30th, 2006 at 7:52 am
Before addressing the issue of a water front development in Auckland ( be it a stadium or a Melbourne Docklands type redevelopment) one has to decide where the port operations are to go.
Tauranga is about as developed as it can without massive dredging and a complete takeover of Sulphur Point for port operations. Marsden Point does not have enough deep water channels or the rail, road infastructure to support a port relocation. So where the port?
November 30th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
I must say I’m surprised here with the apparent lack of concern for the principle of appropriate decision making. My general view, with some exceptions, is that a right and just decision can almost never be arrived at wtihout a right and just decision making process.
Leaving aside the actual pros and cons of a waterfront stadium (it is not an issue I’m particularly interested in - other than the fact that public money should be going towards health, public transport, raising benefit rates from their current poverty-level etc and not a stadium for multi-nationals to make millions from professional sport) we surely all hold here, a belief in democracy and decisions being made, as much as possible, with appropriate levels of public participation. Though democracy under capitalism is far from appropriate in my view, it is certainly preferable to no public consultation at all.
The idea that Aucklanders should be given 2 weeks to make a decision such as this and that important public-consultaion criteria under the RMA should be overridden is totally unacceptable. Apart from possibly certain crisis situations (and I hardly think a stadium or a rugby tournament qualify) due process must surely be a priority.
I think it is a slippery-slope here. If one is to argue that the Govt. and corporate lobbyists can ignore the need for public-input into a decision, because the stadium is supposedly urgent and crucial to our future, then one implicitly validates a quite scary level of undemocratic governing processes. I for one would rather not perpetuate that slide.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
m and cytochem - I agree with you. I think you have made very good points.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
M
I am also glad that the stadium is not going ahead but for completely different reasons.
I note that you are concerned that there was “a lack of concern for the principles of appropriate decision making” and that you suggested that the RMA would have been over ridden.
Given that the RMA is a complete joke I am not surprised that the government only gave the Auks two weeks to sort it out.
Thanks to the RMA Auckland is now a city that can achieve NOTHING.
Did you really think that this government was going to do what the public wanted anyway?, so far they have shown scant regard for public opinion on other more important issues so why would they start now.
Make no mistake this was monument building on a grand scale, this bloody building would have been Auckland’s very own plug hole that the tax payer would have poured money down for years, we already have one monument like that in NZ (Te Papa) we sure as hell do not need another.
BTW..I have a better idea than raising benefit rates from their already inflated level….tell the buggers to get a job!
December 1st, 2006 at 5:34 am
Aw Geez - Big Bruv…. I LOVE Te Papa, and I am damned happy to have a world class museum like that available. Waterfront access in Wellington is about as good as it gets - so how much did it cost? ‘Coz it is worth an awful lot…
Gerrit, BB… because Gerrit “invited” me to come here and comment. My idea for the stadium was to make it a floating stadium (because then I don’t have to WORRY about what the harbor bottom looks like, we can just cost the structure).
Then during the game we could tow it out to sea.
My second idea was to let them play in Christchurch, where a decent Stadium already exists and there’s a plan to build the thing up anyway.
I have watched in awe as this nation which has argued itself into stasis for 27 years to try to work out whether to build a single decent route in and out of the capital found itself in possession of a Rugby World Cup match and decided that a Price No Object stadium with no finalized design, no site review, and no analysis of the displaced activities could be funded for the Auckland waterfront in less than 27 days. Clearly the way to get Transmission Gully built was to put a Rugby Stadium in Paraparaumu.
I have little use for Rugby, and even less for such decision making processes… as the inevitable waste and error is so pronounced.
But back to the question of the port…. the people of Auckland live in a port city. The wharves are a part of what makes it viable, but there are precedents for doing the dredging and changing the layout to accomodate other uses.
I would be loathe to spend money on this at present however, as there is ample reason to expect that ships and shipping are going to rise in importance in the future, as aircraft and air freight decline. This is wrapped up in the price of Jet Fuel… not just the carbon issue, but the overall price of high quality hydrocarbon and overall efficiency of the transport mode. Peak Oil is going to drive us back to efficient transportation.
In short, I wouldn’t give up the wharves just yet. Taking ships to Sydney and the train to the Gold Coast isn’t all that popular for the vacation crowd, we haven’t slowed down enough to have 2 days of travel time locked into our itineraries, but that time will IMHO come.
Greens didn’t want that stadium plan for a wide range of reasons. I was however, gobsmacked by the 27 years to 27 days ratio of decision time… and not impressed with either extreme.
respectfully
BJ
December 1st, 2006 at 6:27 am
You are dead right BJ Auckland is a port city with the need to dredge and extend wharfs. (required because ship building technology is advancing at a rapid rate with bigger & more efficient ships)
Notice nobody has an answer to where the port will go? No the port will stay where it because there is nowhere else.
Public access to the waterfront? Try from Glendowie to Mechanic Bay, Admiralty Steps to the Viaduct Basin, North Head to Long Bay.
Not to mention about thousands of other spots all along the foreshore.
Plus the Tank Farm when Mother Hubbard stops throwing her toys out the cot.
The wharf area is a vital entry point for not just Auckland but the Nation. It will stay there ad infinitum. The area currently used for to store imported verhicles will be needed for future port expansion.
December 1st, 2006 at 10:37 am
big bruv: you seem to on the one hand criticise the govt. for ignoring public opinion on important issues, yet on the other, you encourage the govt. and corporates to override even the limited opportunities for public consultation that are available. Not sure what you’re arguing for.
And though it’s somewhat off topic, there needs to be a response. Do you have any idea the formula that Ruth Richardson used to set benefit rates in the ’90s. It was criminal, and destined to leave a large section of our people in long-term poverty. Furthermore, wage-rates, thanks to Ruth and Roger, are not much higher than benefits (when one takes into consideration child-care, travel costs etc) so it is actually not particularly cost-effective for mothers on the DPB for example, to get a job. Oh, and of course capitalism requires an unemployed workforce to function in the interests of the capitalists, so in fact you need those “buggers” there on benefits so capitalism can ensure a low-wage economy. Thanks Ruth, thanks Roger, thanks multi-national corporates. Beneficiary bashing is one of the most cruel, and most logically incoherent, middle and upper-class rhetoric.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:20 pm
M
I do have some knowledge of the formula Richardson used, basically a person on the dole received about $60 per week less than a person on the minimum wage, given that the beneficiary did not have to worry about the cost of getting to work they were better off than the worker.
Richardson’s policy was not designed to leave a large section of our people in poverty it was designed to get the buggers off the dole and back to work, to suggest it was criminal is wrong.
Nobody (apart from communists) can argue that the reforms of Douglas and Richardson were not needed, hell even the most ardent commies must admit that the have well and truly lost the economic argument.
The comment about capitalism requiring an unemployed workforce is highly emotive, plainly incorrect and does not help your argument one bit.
We live in a country that spends more on social welfare than we do on education and health and that IS criminal.
You seem to be (and if I am wrong I apologise) of the opinion that these benefits are a god given right, while we do need a safety net for the few genuine cases (about 10% of the current beneficiary level) the rest should be forced into work schemes or enticed through benefit cuts to get a bloody job, it is not benefit bashing at all.
The only cruel aspect of social welfare is when the left keep shelling out money to these people for doing nothing at all, this teaches them nothing but reliance on the state.
So I do indeed thank Ruth and Rodger, without them and their policies we would be a bankrupt nation.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:28 pm
BJ
Why would you support a Museum and not a sports stadium?
You cannot have it both ways.
December 1st, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Among other things because it is already here, I have no idea how much it cost, and I have no use for “Bread and Circuses” type arenas BB.
One could probably make the case that I am just being elitist… I do tend that way.
On the other hand, things that contribute to the knowledge and education of the people have value to the society as a whole. Things that only entertain us do not even have that much to justify them.
I personally would’ve liked to have Te Papa built a bit further up the slope rather than on the waterfront. Fortunately the first floor is just the car-park, gift shop and cafeteria, so it might still be usable when the WAIS falls in
At present I am astonished at what Te Papa provides and ignorant of the price paid, either ongoing or initial investment, or how it was and is funded.
I don’t think however, that it was a matter of someone in government handing over a blank check 3 weeks after someone got the brainstorm to build the thing.
We were however, discussing the stadium. Te Papa exists now and is there is no value in abandoning or destroying it.
respectfully
BJ
December 1st, 2006 at 2:18 pm
BJ
While we agree on very little I do enjoy discussing things with you.
Personally I would bulldoze Te Papa “before lunchtime” if I had my way as the bloody thing is elitist and costs us a fortune to run.
It always amazes me that there is a sector of the community (more common on the right I must admit) that hates the idea of public spending yet is more than happy to subsidise things like Te Papa and the Ballet etc.
Given our nations obsession with the obesity epidemic I could make a far better argument for publicly funded sporting stadium than I could for a bloody museum…..but as I am totally against public spending that would be most hypocritical of me.
Given that you are a self confessed elitist can I safely assume you are a cricket fan?(the greatest game of all)
December 2nd, 2006 at 9:34 am
Well - I don’t HATE the idea of public spending. It’s pretty neutral but the idea of public spending without a benefit to the nation as a whole is unlikely to gain my support. Which is why it would be important to know who provides what. With Te Papa I would expect to have half to 2/3 of the funding coming from the lower North Island, as that region benefits the most. Do Auckland and Christchurch get equivalent funding?
However much we may watch Rugby, watching other people play, or dance, does nothing for our bottom lines or our waist lines. Te Papa provides some basic learning tools for children in a world class facility. It is VERY good. Elitist? No, I want everyone to be knowledgeable, as the best democracy is that formed from an educated people. Ballet and Opera give me more reason to agree with you, as their appreciation often appears to be as much a matter of a self-image for the wealthy as it is a real feeling for the art. I learned to enjoy Ballet, and can listen to concert music with real pleasure, but I can’t argue that it educates or should get state funding as a result. I’d find money for it before I’d send someone on a tour to study Hip-Hop, but that’s still just a personal taste.
I don’t actually watch ANY sports. I went to see the F1 race in Adelaide when I was there and it was there, but that’s it. I like cars.
We probably agree more than you realize. Government can be evil, corporations can be evil, individuals can be evil. Checks and balances are needed.
respectfully
BJ
December 2nd, 2006 at 7:07 pm
BJ
I come from Wellington (the Rivera of the south pacific) and have been to Te Papa, for the life of me I cannot see what the hell the thing does.
You said it educates, IMHO it is a propaganda machine for the politically correct, as far as I am concerned education should present both sides of the argument not just the one that is popular at that point in time.
September 1st, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Yeah, its popular at the point in time, but wonder why wasn’t Keith campaigning for us to go through the process correctly, rather than campaigning with Rodney to to oppose the waterfront stadium?
Anyone else get the sense that there might be a larger agenda at play here?
I feel useless to go through such agenda if this type of matter is cott!
Wales Rugby Shirt