I may have the chronological order incorrect but I feel the Waimataitai shopping strip on Evans St was Timaru’s first suburban development of shops followed by Gleniti, Highfield and Northtown.
I guess many retail businesses in the Washdyke area could be classed as mini-big box developments. Back then such developments were seen as progress and I can’t remember anyone objecting to such progress.
As a number of correspondents have pointed out, large box development simply cannot be built in Stafford St or any of the side streets because they couldn’t
meet modern parking and landscaping requirements.
Showgrounds-like developments have happened up and down the country and it is a trend that is likely to continue because of shoppers’ ability to travel more easily than years ago.
I would suggest that the group that are arguing against the Showgrounds development are going against modern trends and that the bulk of people in the district want to see such a development.
The CBD is not just about Timaru. The opposing group should start thinking about those shoppers. The Showgrounds is a natural site for people entering Timaru from Pleasant Point, Temuka, Geraldine and other smaller townships.
I am not going to name any large box possible businesses but I am sure many people can think of a number that they would like see come to Timaru.
All the scaremongering about the square metres that the Showgrounds site is in comparison to the Timaru CBD is just that, scaremongering. No business is going to cover a site with buildings and a large central car park area in the hope that lessees will swarm in to occupy them. They will be feeling out prospective lessees and take it from there.
G R Woods
We don’t need the Showgrounds
development but the developers want it and then they will take their money and run.
Similarly in the general election campaign; we do need to look after people such as those who have lost jobs etc but the economy is not the most important thing.
Gross domestic product (GDP), the yardstick for measuring the economy is not a sacred cow. It may define wealth but knows nothing of health, education, welfare, things fundamental to the community.
Yet we have politicians baying to get the economy up and running again. Have they not registered the horrendous effect such thinking has had on Britain and the United States.
Likewise, we are to vote on the want/need for cannabis which by the latest conservative estimate costs the taxpayer $1.7 billion. At least that is better than the $9.7b alcohol harm costs the community. I suggest if we apply the needs, not wants, to these two commodities, it will do a lot more for the economy and the community.