Sprawl – Risking The Future Of Christchurch

8 Comments on "Sprawl – Risking The Future Of Christchurch"

action on Sun, 10th Nov 2013 5:44 pm 



Close quarter design might milk a few extra years out of it, but quite frankly there is no way to isolate it from the effects of peak oil. With no food, water or electricity, people will flee from it.

rollin on Sun, 10th Nov 2013 6:01 pm 



Having checked further into this proposal than the video covers, it is an urban redevelopment plan. These usually remove poorer less desirable people and businesses and implant modern expensive businesses and housing.

In her plan, the people would have no place to go since further development outside the city would be blocked.

Nasty social streamlining, money making plan under the cover of peak oil. Best always to check the men and women behind the curtain before being led into the land of Oz on a witch hunt.

AWB on Sun, 10th Nov 2013 6:27 pm 



Solar PV (with storage) should be mandatory for the roofs of every “ex-urban” house built. 10-12kW of solar power would not only eliminate the electricity bill for the house; it would also provide ample electric power to get the car into the city and back.

Susan is right about the peaking of conventional oil, but she hasn’t taken into account the immense opportunities in solar at current prices. And those prices are going down in the future.

action on Sun, 10th Nov 2013 7:17 pm 



Solar is a dead end as it’s predicated on oil, let it go.

energy investor on Sun, 10th Nov 2013 8:36 pm 



Christchurch has lost about 10,000 people who have left. Many businesses have relocated (due to the destruction of the city centre) to the suburbs and much residential destruction has occurred because of liquifaction and the unsuitability of building on the land where houses are still being bulldozed.

It is the city centre where the bulk of investment will happen, but this will be low-rise due to the possibility of further earthquakes. What is not mentioned is that intensification of housing close in is not advisable if future major earthquakes occur. So the nodal development of suburbs may in fact make more sense.

Sure I accept that we are soon likely to start paying a higher economic price for fossil fuels and perhaps a return to large sections, allowing family gardens, may be a better idea than intensification of residential areas.

energy investor on Sun, 10th Nov 2013 8:39 pm 



Just a note…short term the departure of residents has been more than compensated for by the arrival of large numbers of temporary workers to hasten the rebuild. These folk come from all over the world but with many from the Philippines and Ireland.

BillT on Mon, 11th Nov 2013 9:47 am 



AWB, solar will NOT be free or cheap. And if you are going to power your car with solar, you need large roof. Say a $30K US system to start. 15 year life span before repairs/replacements become necessary and regular. The means your ‘free’ electric is costing you $200 US per month for those 10 years. Then you need a new set of batteries and that costs say $5K so you now have another 2 years at $200 per month. Then the converter goes out and it sets you back another 6 to 8 months. Etc. No, solar will not be free, not even close. And this is a best case scenario. Replacement costs could be multiples higher or not even possible.

GregT on Tue, 12th Nov 2013 1:45 am 



AND, if you are planning to drive an electric vehicle, better buy it soon. The economy will more than likely collapse long before fossil fuels run out. Electric vehicles also require batteries, which also have limited lifespans. No batteries, no electric vehicles.