No monorail

Forums › Off topic › No monorail

1 | 2

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1056590 30-May-2014 15:19

networkn: I couldn't understand this whole project, surely we need better transport options in our cities than worrying about 200M spent on a tourist attraction. If they spent that $200M on a rail option to the airport, that would make so much more sense to me.

Spending $400 million on both would make more sense to me.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1056593 30-May-2014 15:30

The area they wanted to go through has very rare and unique flora and fauna an it would be at risk. The regions value for tourism is that flora and fauna and the untouched nature or the region, putting the rail in for tourists and thus changing the untouched nature was illogical. The project was simply stupid.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

nathan

5695 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1630
Inactive user

#1056617 30-May-2014 15:49

even DOC said it was "OK"

Personally I think Doubtful Sound is way nicer, but I would have loved to have ridden the mountain bike track alongside the monorail

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4797

#1056618 30-May-2014 15:54

joker97: well Dunedin with its dying economy also rejected a 5 star hotel. I guess the fewer people trespassing the country the cleaner it stays

Did you see the design for it though... These things need to be in scale for the size , character and landscape of the town.

trig42

5889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2094

ID Verified

#1056630 30-May-2014 16:20

Len and his mates should have done a deal with Sydney for their monorail - would have been quite cool for getting from Britomart to North Wharf via the Viaduct.

I think what the govt was worried about was that they would start building this thing (which would require a bit of destruction through some pretty untouched forest) and go broke.

afe66

3181 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1678

Lifetime subscriber

#1056637 30-May-2014 16:35

Glad it was turned down.

A.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

D1023319

527 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 90

ID Verified

#1056645 30-May-2014 16:46

I,m sad the monorail was turned down. We need more jobs in sth island and the best way to protect nature is if more people can see it.

I suspect over time a elevated monorail will leave less mark on landscape than trampers wearing the land down

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1056685 30-May-2014 18:08

mattwnz:
joker97: well Dunedin with its dying economy also rejected a 5 star hotel. I guess the fewer people trespassing the country the cleaner it stays

Did you see the design for it though... These things need to be in scale for the size , character and landscape of the town.

Oddly though the NZ planning process generally does not take appearance into account unless a site is in a listed heritage area etc. Our village has some hideous monstrosities in it that would have failed any reasonable visual impact assessment.

Mostly it seems to be that as long as it complies with the Building Code, you can build whatever eyesore you like.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1056687 30-May-2014 18:14

Geektastic:
mattwnz:
joker97: well Dunedin with its dying economy also rejected a 5 star hotel. I guess the fewer people trespassing the country the cleaner it stays

Did you see the design for it though... These things need to be in scale for the size , character and landscape of the town.

Oddly though the NZ planning process generally does not take appearance into account unless a site is in a listed heritage area etc. Our village has some hideous monstrosities in it that would have failed any reasonable visual impact assessment.

Mostly it seems to be that as long as it complies with the Building Code, you can build whatever eyesore you like.

Probably not the hotels in Dunedin, Wellington and the mono rail testify to that.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

old3eyes

9158 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1364

Subscriber

#1056710 30-May-2014 18:46

Looking at the news tonite it doesn't matter what is proposed down there the greenies will try to block it. They seem to want to lock it up and stop anyone from seeing it..

Regards,

Old3eyes

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4797

#1056729 30-May-2014 18:57

Geektastic:
mattwnz:
joker97: well Dunedin with its dying economy also rejected a 5 star hotel. I guess the fewer people trespassing the country the cleaner it stays

Did you see the design for it though... These things need to be in scale for the size , character and landscape of the town.

Oddly though the NZ planning process generally does not take appearance into account unless a site is in a listed heritage area etc. Our village has some hideous monstrosities in it that would have failed any reasonable visual impact assessment.

Mostly it seems to be that as long as it complies with the Building Code, you can build whatever eyesore you like.

Many towns have guidelines for design, so the character isn't ruined. This dictates scales and materials. Unfortunately the reason why horrible monstrosities get built is due to money.

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1056769 30-May-2014 19:09

old3eyes: Looking at the news tonite it doesn't matter what is proposed down there the greenies will try to block it. They seem to want to lock it up and stop anyone from seeing it..

I don't see a problem with protecting some of our fantastic areas for future generations.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1056955 31-May-2014 09:43

mattwnz:
Geektastic:
mattwnz:
joker97: well Dunedin with its dying economy also rejected a 5 star hotel. I guess the fewer people trespassing the country the cleaner it stays

Did you see the design for it though... These things need to be in scale for the size , character and landscape of the town.

Oddly though the NZ planning process generally does not take appearance into account unless a site is in a listed heritage area etc. Our village has some hideous monstrosities in it that would have failed any reasonable visual impact assessment.

Mostly it seems to be that as long as it complies with the Building Code, you can build whatever eyesore you like.

Many towns have guidelines for design, so the character isn't ruined. This dictates scales and materials. Unfortunately the reason why horrible monstrosities get built is due to money.

Equally many do not. There seems to be no legal and national requirement for it as can be evidenced by the unimaginative and somewhat utilitarian built environment of many towns.

In our village we range from wonderful 100 year old villas to hideous structures built entirely from shiny galvanised tin that look like giant pig shelters in a Norfolk farmer's field!

old3eyes

9158 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1364

Subscriber

#1056957 31-May-2014 09:47

KiwiNZ:
old3eyes: Looking at the news tonite it doesn't matter what is proposed down there the greenies will try to block it. They seem to want to lock it up and stop anyone from seeing it..

I don't see a problem with protecting some of our fantastic areas for future generations.

I see a problem when you want to put a road in down the west cost that cuts off 350Km and traveling but then the BANANAS (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone (or) Anything. ) of this world will do nothing any where in case a tree gets broken..

Regards,

Old3eyes

1 | 2