Role of councillors not to promote fancy projects

WE hear a lot about the ‘‘visionary’’ projects that our city councillors intend to foist on our beautiful city.

It is about time for our mayor and the councillors to stop talkingup the ‘‘greatest small city’’ and learn to just accept that fact and calibrate their ‘‘visions’’ to what is appropriate and needed, and to what we can afford.

As a good small city we do not need nor can afford a fancy pedestrian/ bicycle bridge, costing $20 million, to lead to a proposed pretentious, stereotype, mockmodern, fashionable development on our wharves. This project will do absolutely nothing for the residents of Dunedin but it will be largely paid for by them.

There are many other ‘‘visions’’ our council could entertain. What about a city in which everyone can live in decent accommodation and can afford to actively participate in what the town offers, culturally, sports, etc? What about a city with good, well maintained infrastructure, etc, etc . . .

Our city councillors have to accept that they are not there to promote fancy projects. They have been elected to administer and look after the core functions and to protect the wellbeing of all its residents.

Kobi Bosshard Middlemarch

I AM left wondering at times as to what planet some of the Dunedin City councillors are living on. Seemingly the latest ‘‘vision’’ to be thrust upon the unsuspecting ratepayers has in my view all the hallmarks of a 2am crystal ball gazing seance meeting held in the DCC Civic Centre underground car park. This was the ODT front page announcement of a proposed children’s playground located between the railway and the Upper Otago Harbour. If this playground were to be built it will necessitate the relocation of Wharf Street and the removal of the northeastern ramp of the overhead bridge (ODT, 11.12.18). Instead of removing this ramp this structure should be enhanced by infilling the upper curve with a ‘‘clip on’’ to the existing ramp that would then lessen the the tightness of the existing bend. This would result in many vehicles, especially heavy commercial vehicles, not having to be forced to cross over the centre line of the road here as can be seen at present. With the soon to be extra heavy traffic on State Highway 1 resulting from the new hospital construction and a possible reverting to a two way single street system, vehicular traffic congestion must surely follow. For motorists travelling either way when utilising SH88 it would then become a lot more convenient to use the present overhead bridge road system when connecting with SH1, particularly when coming from the south. If it is still thought that a large centre city children’s playground was required then locate it in Logan Park alongside the other sporting facilities. At least it would be more out of the inclement weather that the Upper Otago Harbour of Dunedin often experiences.

John Neilson Ravensbourne

IN these times of increasing poverty, housing shortages and climate change, I offer the DCC a New Year’s Resolution: austerity.

The proposed harbourside playground is an attempt to justify the cost of the harbourside bridge — ignore it.

Do not spend $20 million on the harbourside bridge, or $10 million on a basic bridge, nor even $5 million on a realistic overbridge. Threequarters of these costs are in the ramped approaches to the bridge, which increase time and effort for users, obliterate the Chinese Garden car park and ruin area heritage values.

Instead, build a crossing with none of these disadvantages, but which is safer than any overbridge — an at-level, completely enclosed, end-mounted horizontal swing bridge. To reduce costs, recycle a railway carriage shell as the bridge, and a railway turntable as the pivot — heritage at its best.

At the end of it all, Dunedin would arguably have the safest and most interesting atlevel crossing in the country — and possibly, the world.

And the DCC would have $19 million to spend on the drains.

Ray Phipps Dunedin