Christchurch - moving to
May 2nd 2011, 2:30 am
#16
Queen of the Underworld
Joined: Dec 2007
Location: In NZ!
Posts: 4,785
Re: Christchurch - moving to
I am a confusion of contradictions
New and modern can have elements that hark back to what was there before without looking exactly the same or old fashioned.
No is the simple answer. I described that hotel as being Pisa-esque to a friend. I was looking at it from the eastern side of town the other day, it looks worse in real life than it does in photos
You must give architects a real headache. New and modern can have elements that hark back to what was there before without looking exactly the same or old fashioned.
May 2nd 2011, 3:44 pm
#17
Location:West Van, BC
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2008
Location: Gloucestershire UK
Posts: 132
Re: Christchurch - moving to
Hi,thanks for the feedback ... true it is a personal thing,but good to hear different points of view ... we have lived in CHCH before in Sumner area and would want to return to the community we know,but seems that area is in a bad state,kids have school places on offer as well but Auckland would offer city all intact .... hope to make decision soon ..... again thanks for input ....
May 2nd 2011, 11:45 pm
#18
Truth is the safest lie.
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: @ the beach.
Posts: 7,241
Re: Christchurch - moving to
. I'm suprised by the number of companies that haven't bothered to update their websites, not just small shops either for example Burgerking reports it's outlet on Moorehouse ave. is still open.
May 14th 2011, 1:48 am
#19
Truth is the safest lie.
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: @ the beach.
Posts: 7,241
Re: Christchurch - moving to
The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (Cera) is threatening to take over the demolition of central Christchurch buildings and send owners the bill.
Cera interim deconstruction manager Warwick Isaacs said yesterday the owners of dangerous buildings would receive a letter giving them 10 days to submit a demolition plan.
If the letters were ignored or the time frame submitted was considered too long, Cera would take over and bill the owners for the cost of demolition.
"If no-one comes back to us in 10 days, we pull it down," he said.
Cera interim deconstruction manager Warwick Isaacs said yesterday the owners of dangerous buildings would receive a letter giving them 10 days to submit a demolition plan.
If the letters were ignored or the time frame submitted was considered too long, Cera would take over and bill the owners for the cost of demolition.
"If no-one comes back to us in 10 days, we pull it down," he said.
It is expected 900 inner-city buildings will have to be demolished, as well as 300 suburban commercial buildings.
