Wellington Scoop
Network

E-Mail 'They've saved the orb - time to save the (magnificent) Town Hall too' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'They've saved the orb - time to save the (magnificent) Town Hall too' to a friend

* Required Field






Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.



Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.


E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...

15 comments:

  1. Michael Gibson, 21. October 2015, 13:57

    If the good people of St Mary’s in Boulcott Street can do it, why can’t the WCC do it for the very precious Town Hall?
    If they have spent spent all the money on helping developers wreck the waterfront, etc., they should ‘fess up before the next election.

     
  2. Anabel, 21. October 2015, 18:46

    Complete waste of money. Any geologist will tell you given a big enough earthquake no building sitting on the ground is safe (nor can it be considered “earthquake strengthened”).
    It’s a big lie for the blowout spending leading to toll roads and private assets.
    Fear keeps people non questioning on this issue of the “earthquake strengthening scam”.

     
  3. Guy, 21. October 2015, 22:55

    Annabel, your comment is ill-informed and largely incorrect. You’re not a geologist or a structural engineer yourself, are you? I’m not interested in getting into a slanging match over this issue, other than to say that seismic strengthening is indeed possible – and I suspect that this project is quite a tricky one, which is probably accounts for some of the long delay on the project.

    But I agree with Lindsay that the Council need to stop being all secret squirrel over it, and that they should go public, and tell us what the situation is.

     
  4. Anabel, 23. October 2015, 8:18

    Guy you are not a geologist and do not know what you are talking about.

     
  5. Andrew, 23. October 2015, 11:04

    ‘Given a big enough earthquake’… Anything could happen. That’s why buildings, products etc are designed to meet a certain specification, not an unknown.

     
  6. Harry, 23. October 2015, 11:46

    Absolutely Andrew – it’s just a costly scam (based on ignorance & fear). That’s why we have stringent building codes and not ‘earthquake codes’.

     
  7. Paul, 23. October 2015, 12:08

    @ Anabel, so your logic is because we can’t protect against all possible eventualities, don’t bother protecting against any?

     
  8. Anabel, 23. October 2015, 16:41

    Paul: Your logic seems to be that you think you can “protect” selected buildings from the possibility of harm from large earthquakes with unknown S & P waves. You can’t and there is no logic for extra strengthening which was done on buildings (such as the glass house at the botanical gardens for $150,000) which does not provide any additional protection . Fear mongering was used for the “earthquake building scam” – not science. We have a robust building code.

     
  9. Andrew, 23. October 2015, 17:34

    We have a robust code now; surely things have changed since the Town Hall was built? I don’t think anyone is expecting it to be converted into a nuclear proof bunker (arguably the only building that would withstand ‘a big enough earthquake’). Surely the point of the exercise is to bring the building up to a higher spec?

     
  10. Anabel, 24. October 2015, 9:26

    It only needs to be up to the existing robust building code.

    Though this discussion has changed to the fear monger topic of converting the town hall to a “nuclear bunker,” this does not mean we should restructure and strengthen some buildings to be “nuclear bunkers”. “Earthquake strengthening” was done on some buildings which did not provide any additional protection – as is the case with most of the glass buildings. It is just a costly debt creating scam and wealth transfer scheme which is based on scaring people into accepting a non science backed glass building “humpty dumpty” $ show .
    If ratepayers were not “fear mongered” but were informed and consulted on this, they would indeed question the logic and facts in the WCC’s scheming .

     
  11. Andrew, 24. October 2015, 21:41

    Hold on Anabel, I’m not being a fear monger, please don’t bend what I wrote.

     
  12. lindsay, 27. October 2015, 19:52

    Not a word from any councillor about the value of the Town Hall and the need to bring it back into use. Surely some of them are aware of its unique importance? Or are they all banned from saying anything to defend it?

     
  13. Marion Leader, 28. October 2015, 7:20

    With respect to Lindsay, it seems to me that Anabel is the voice of the Councillors.

     
  14. Andy, 28. October 2015, 8:09

    It’s because they don’t want to be implicated in the “earthquake strengthening scam”. The Town Hall, as it is up to the robust building code, is fine to be used.

     
  15. Carion Feeder, 28. October 2015, 13:19

    @MarionLeader – no it is obvious that Anabel is not the voice of the WCC and she doesn’t sound to me like she supports their scheming. Lindsay was right to question the WCC councillors.