Party central

87 comments on “Party central ”

• Comments are now closed

1. lprent 1

   9 July 2010 at 8:12 am

   It has already been up yesterday. Oh well a reprise can’t hurt. It is a create great cartoon in the best traditions of political cartoons

   Updated: One of the problems with the iPad is that it likes correcting my spelling. Useful most of the time….
   • r0b 1.1

     9 July 2010 at 8:23 am

     Ooops – sorry! (I’m having an odd week….)
     • felix 1.1.1

       9 July 2010 at 9:55 am

       I seem to be having this tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle.
2. Carol 2

   9 July 2010 at 8:52 am

   I noticed Murray McCully came out with aggressive attack on current Auckland management, in response to the lates FU with ‘party central’. This seems like a standard tactic of the Key government. I guess Labour governments tend to do this also. But the level of aggression, while over-riding legitimate criticisms and democratic debate seems to be taken to a new level by NACT. It reminded me of Tolley’s attacks on principals in response to their criticisms of the National Standards.

   McCully was using it as a vehicle for promoting the new (undemocratic) supercity set-up. In contrast, Phil Twyford put the blame firmly with the governments mismanagement, and lack of vigilant over-sight of their party central plan:

   http://business.scoop.co.nz/2010/07/08/time-to-sort-out-party-central-shambles/

   For myself, I don’t understand why they want a ‘party central’. It just seems to be something that will promote all the worst aspects of booze-saturated, macho, rugby culture. I would favour supporting the whole of the CBD and viaduct area as an entertainment zone, with some big screens showing games in places where crowds can gather. The various bars, restaurants etc can cater to diverse lifestyles amongst rugby followers.
   • Tigger 2.1

     9 July 2010 at 9:17 am

     Yeah, McCully really put the boot in. Way to take responsibility there Murray. Key also slammed the sheds as not being of any value. Because historical value is worthless…
     • Jim Nald 2.1.1

       9 July 2010 at 10:18 am

       So where’s now the new ‘Party Central’ venue to launch the National Party Central campaign for Elections 2011?

       p.s. Some photo ops next to a Dipton shed?
     • ianmac 2.1.2

       9 July 2010 at 10:58 am

       After all, Mr Key’s estate is in the best possible taste and will have many years of service as a shrine to aspirations of greed and disregard to the average kiwi.
3. D14 3

   9 July 2010 at 9:00 am

   They are lucky it is not in a brewery, because they couldn’t organize that.
4. mickysavage 4

   9 July 2010 at 9:13 am

   Rather than the erection of a temporary tent maybe they should take the opportunity of putting the money into creating part of the John Key memorial cycleway. They could create a track directly from Eden Park to the Viaduct. This will have the twin benefits of reducing the incidence of drunk driving and also provide a welcome kick start to a glorious project that unfortunately does not seem to be getting off the ground …
5. Pascal's bookie 5

   9 July 2010 at 9:25 am

   I’m notably fucking daft, but are there not clubrooms that:

   could use the patronage,
   are steeped in appropriate history that discerning rugby tourists might find quaint, homely and experiential,
   often have bloody great big paddocks attached?
   • comedy 5.1

     9 July 2010 at 9:27 am

     By all accounts party central is part of the RWC contract as signed by Trevor Mallard. I expect Heineken, as a premier sponsor, have it written in so they can fill the masses with their product.
   • Fabregas4 5.2

     9 July 2010 at 9:33 am

     Fantastic post Pascals Bookie!

     If I were a rugby club or bar owner I would be thinking that the RWC is an opportunity to make some hard earned money in the recession.

     I’d be totally annoyed that the govt decided to move it all to a very large corporate box! How anti business can you get – bloody lefties!
6. big bruv 6

   9 July 2010 at 9:32 am

   The whole RWC is going to be a huge national embarrassment as well as a colossal waste of time and money.

   Clearly we could not organise a piss up in a brewery, why the IRB ever thought we had the ability to host this event is confusing, Japan would have been a far better option and saved us from making complete fools of ourself.
   • The Voice of Reason 6.1

     9 July 2010 at 9:37 am

     Speaking of making a complete fool of yourself, Blub, have you paid up yet?
     • BLiP 6.1.1

       9 July 2010 at 9:41 am

       heh! SNAP
     • comedy 6.1.2

       9 July 2010 at 9:43 am

       Play the comment not the man.

       The comment by BB is spot on.
       • felix 6.1.2.1

         9 July 2010 at 10:03 am

         The dilemma I have is that when he says “we couldn’t” and “fools of ourself” he has in fact injected himself, including his abilities and traits, into the discussion. In this case the comment is the man and that kind of comment is only going to lead to disorder.

         *I am on my feet!
   • BLiP 6.2

     9 July 2010 at 9:40 am

     Talking of making a complete fool of yourself, here’s the link to wikileaks for payment of your debt. Time to do the right thing, there’s a good lad.
   • mickysavage 6.3

     9 July 2010 at 9:54 am

     BB

     In the interests of your posts being treated on merit and you not being reminded continuously about your failure to live up to the bet can I suggest that you pay up?
     • Lanthanide 6.3.1

       9 July 2010 at 12:59 pm

       His posts very rarely have any merit any way.
7. tsmithfield 7

   9 July 2010 at 9:55 am

   This fiasco is exactly why there should be a super city. How anyone could hope to do business with the dysfunctional clowns there at the moment is beyond me. And why do they want to save that Gawd-awful eye-sore of a building when they could have a sparkling, brand-new one?
   • felix 7.1

     9 July 2010 at 10:09 am

     Perhaps we’re sick of Auckland’s “developers” tearing down everything more than 5 minutes old and replacing it with plastic tack.

     Why replace an old “eye-sore” with a new one?
     • tsmithfield 7.1.1

       9 July 2010 at 10:12 am

       If there was anything meritorious or special about it I would probably agree with you. However, I don’t think there is any shortage of ugly old tin sheds. Whether there should be a building put in its place is another argument. However, as it stands the existing building is what bulldozers were designed for.
       • felix 7.1.1.1

         9 July 2010 at 12:16 pm

         I suppose there is a range of views on what constitutes merit in architecture and some people are more fond of industrial spaces than others.

         I don’t really have an opinion about those particular buildings but I pray for some sense of taste to prevail whatever the outcome. And sadly my experience of Auckland tells me it probably wont.
         • comedy 7.1.1.1.1

           9 July 2010 at 12:21 pm

           “I pray for some sense of taste to prevail”

           I have just shat my pants laughing.
           • felix 7.1.1.1.1.1

             9 July 2010 at 12:53 pm

             I vomited typing it, just a little, into my mouth.
             • comedy …

               9 July 2010 at 1:03 pm

               Much the same as we Aucklanders do whilst driving around the city – some of the shite that has been built up here over the years has to be seen up close to really induce d&v.

               A bit like the high court building in Wellington.

               http://www.odt.co.nz/files/story/2010/01/the_new_supreme_court_in_wellington_photo_from_the_3302156884.JPG
8. big bruv 8

   9 July 2010 at 10:05 am

   You are right tsmithfield, if ever one needed a reason to bring in the super city mayoralty this is it.

   However, that still will not change the fact that the RWC will be a cause for national embarrassment.
9. prism 9

   9 July 2010 at 10:16 am

   The tourism Manager in Auckland on Nat radio this a.m. said they were expecting 43,000 visitors for The Cup which is a considerable increase on usual and that party central was a good idea to provide hospitality for the numbers.

   McCully should shut up, cough up the small amount of millions Wellington is providing (compared to the more expensive cruiseship terminal originally in the scheme about $100 million) and let Auckland get on with this cheaper option they have decided on.

   Trouble is pollies get grand nation (and self) promoting ideas, cf Greece and the Olympics, and normal spending caution gets mislaid. I think its another hat peg – Tolley has one for her imagined tiara, and McCully for his crown? Rugby Shield, Cup?
10. prism 10

    9 July 2010 at 10:23 am

    I like the cartoon. Did I hear that vuvuzelas are going to be banned? (Hopefully)
11. Anne 11

    9 July 2010 at 10:53 am

    Have been listening on and off to ZB Radio this morning. Paul Holmes (standing in for the climate denier supremo, Leighton Smith) is behaving like the philistine he is. All the blame for the Queen’s Wharf fiasco is being placed on the shoulders of the ARC and Mike Lee in particular. It’s got personal, and the viciousness is appalling. No balance… no acknowledgment that the original idea was just one of Key’s distraction tactics at the time, and had nothing to do with ARC.

    The Historic Places Trust is copping it too. The caustic comments are so outrageous I think someone from the HPT should be ringing him pronto. Stopped listening. Can’t take any more of his distorted ravings.
    • Lanthanide 11.1

      9 July 2010 at 1:03 pm

      The HPT do take some of the blame, for apparently not coming up with this opinion 2 months ago when they should’ve. Why has this waited until the very last minute before it (publicly) became a problem?
      • Mr Shennanigans 11.1.1

        9 July 2010 at 4:08 pm

        If you have a look at the information on the ARC’s council agenda you get a good idea of what has been happening in the past few months. As you would see the HPT wrote to the ARC in April saying that further consideration should be given to keeping the sheds.

        After that, in May the ARC changed their minds and have spent the last two months trying to talk around McCully.

        It’s all here: http://www.arc.govt.nz/albany/fms/main/Documents/Council/Agendas%20and%20minutes/Council/Web%20version%20-%207%20July%202010%20-%20ARC%20Agenda%20-%20Extra%20Council%20Mtg.pdf
12. walter 12

    9 July 2010 at 11:00 am

    I’m travelling to a foreign land for an event, do I want to:

    a) spend my time in a ‘manufactured’ facility rubbing shoulders with other visitors?

    OR

    b) sample the genuine, Kiwi hospitality of a range authentic local venues?
13. Fisiani 13

    9 July 2010 at 12:00 pm

    Place the blame where it belongs.
    The Auckland Regional Council claiming that delapidated sheds were worth spending $17,000,000 of ratepayers money on
14. Anne 14

    9 July 2010 at 12:04 pm

    @ Fisiani
    Ring Paul Holmes on ZB. You’ll get a sympathetic hearing. One philistine talking to another…
15. tsmithfield 15

    9 July 2010 at 12:10 pm

    Anne, just because buildings can be saved doesn’t mean they should be. Tell me, what is particularly meritorious about these buildings that makes them worth saving above other deserving cases? The way some people are going on here it gives the impression that the buildings are cathedrals or something. But they’re not. They’re ugly old tin sheds of which the world has plenty.
    • Anne 15.1

      9 July 2010 at 2:13 pm

      @ tsmithfield
      Typical of a philistine attitude. You can’t see beyond the “ugly old tin shed” to their historical and hereditary significance. Shed 10 (the one in contention) doesn’t have to stay dilapidated and ugly.
      Fremantle, Perth did a marvellous job with their “ugly old tin sheds” and they are now a huge tourist attraction. We could do the same with at least the larger of the sheds. But that is too much for the likes of Key and McCully to possibly comprehend.

      @ Lanthanide.
      Yes you’re right. The HPT should have come up with their concerns much sooner, but better late than never.
      • comedy 15.1.1

        9 July 2010 at 2:31 pm

        What is their historical and hereditary significance ?

        Is it worth 16 million more for the long suffering ratepayer ?
      • tsmithfield 15.1.2

        9 July 2010 at 2:53 pm

        Now Anne, can you honestly say with your hand on your heart that this is the best way for the council to spend 17 million?
16. comedy 16

    9 July 2010 at 12:18 pm

    For those out of Auckland this is what the fuss is about.

    http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2009/07/queens-wharf-site-visit-shed-10.html

    Feel free to make fun of us up in Auckland, although I hear that planning in Christchurch is almost as retarded as up here.
    • tsmithfield 16.1

      9 July 2010 at 12:49 pm

      Comedy, I’m from Christchurch, and I’d agree. Planning here is pretty retarded.

      I had a look at those pictures you posted and I think I’ve run out of adjectives to describe how ugly those buildings look. Perhaps the council wants to save them to preserve an example of the most ugly buildings that humans could possibly dream up.
      • comedy 16.1.1

        9 July 2010 at 1:06 pm

        I think part of the process of being an elected official is total frontal lobotomisation along with the insertion of a troughing and stupidity central programming device.
        • tsmithfield 16.1.1.1

          9 July 2010 at 1:10 pm

          I think that getting into power infects them with some sort of PC virus that convinces them that if anything is old, ugly, and about to fall over it urgently needs millions of ratepayers dollars spent to save it. Who cares about basic council functions such as sewage, water, etc.
    • felix 16.2

      9 July 2010 at 1:35 pm

      After seeing those photos actually I can see what the fuss is about.

      Quite a stunning space.
      • tsmithfield 16.2.1

        9 July 2010 at 1:49 pm

        I agree. It would be a stunning “space”…. if that was all to it:- a space with no ugly buildings on it.
17. Tui 17

    9 July 2010 at 1:17 pm

    Will they have Water Police cruising around Key’s ‘Party Central’ to fish out bedraggled drunks and celebrities who cannot keep it down after falling off the dock in a fit of patriotic over-enthusiasm ?
    • big bruv 17.1

      9 July 2010 at 1:21 pm

      How is it Key’s party central?

      Mallard signed the deal to bring the RWC to NZ, having a “party central” was always part of the deal.

      This issue is not political, it is simply another example of how piss poor we are as a race of people at organising anything.
      • felix 17.1.1

        9 July 2010 at 1:39 pm

        “was always part of the deal.”

        Let’s think about those words, bludge – “was always part of the deal.”

        Pay your bill, bludger.
    • tsmithfield 17.2

      9 July 2010 at 1:50 pm

      Nah…. thats part of the plan. A way of selecting out the defective genes from the population.

      A reply to Tui, by the way. Don’t know why the comment appeared here.
      • felix 17.2.1

        9 July 2010 at 2:09 pm

        Good idea. I suggest oiling the surface just to be sure.
18. randal 18

    9 July 2010 at 1:21 pm

    typical national.
    they always wanta piss up on someone elses money.
    they want the best so they can trash it and walk away feeling satisfied.
    • big bruv 18.1

      9 July 2010 at 1:24 pm

      Ha ha….”they always wanta piss up on someone elses money.”

      Pledge card anybody????
      • felix 18.1.1

        9 July 2010 at 1:37 pm

        Speaking of other people’s money, you’re holding $100 of it.

        Pay up you bludger.
19. Pat 19

    9 July 2010 at 1:22 pm

    Just about every farm in NZ has an old tin shed on it. Why are the Historic Places Trust sitting on their hands?
    • tsmithfield 19.1

      9 July 2010 at 1:53 pm

      Yeah. There are lots of councils wasting money on sewage, roading, and water that could be spending it on rescuing old tin sheds. They need to be getting their priorities right.
      • felix 19.1.1

        9 July 2010 at 4:29 pm

        Need to see some pricing before taking those statements too seriously.

        The choice to be made isn’t “Sewerage & roading” VS “Fixing up old sheds” –

        It’s “Knocking down old sheds and building build new sheds” VS “Fixing up old sheds”.
    • Pat 19.2

      9 July 2010 at 1:57 pm

      Isn’t the logical solution to remove the sheds, in pieces, to another location for restoration, and erect the temporary slug on the wharf for Party Central.

      Then after the World Cup, remove the shed pieces from their iodine solution (or whatever) and re-erect them for tourists to make comparisons against Sydney’s Opera House.
      • Tiger Mountain 19.2.1

        9 July 2010 at 5:39 pm

        Even Pat has got me chuckling, this is too much.
20. Tui 20

    9 July 2010 at 1:41 pm

    The Sydney Olympic party scene was pretty decentralised among the bars and restaurants of Darling Harbour, although they did construct a temporary ‘party place’ creatively using tarpaulins and 4×2 under the western off-ramp where a lot of winning athletes came to socialise and recover from their prolonged physical and psychological build-up. It seemed to attract all manner of young things, some people trying to keep a low profile, and a few well-known Aotearoans.

    But there was nothing as grandiose as ‘Party Central’ – a reflection of NACT’s small-town stalinist tendencies.

    How is it Key’s party central? He’s the PM.
21. ianmac 21

    9 July 2010 at 2:45 pm

    The sheds look a bit scuffy but on seeing the interior beams and so on there is scope for much individualistic identity. I imagine that the cladding can be beautified and beams stained and toilets put in and so on. Also the “party goers” will not be interested much in the cladding.
    I came and went through the huge Dubai airport several times recently and had no idea what the outside was like until I saw it from about 3km away. It looks like a huge –ummm slug!
    • comedy 21.1

      9 July 2010 at 4:06 pm

      ianmac it will cost an additional shiteload on top of the currently proposed fiasco to do up these sheds – I take it oyou are not a local ratepayer ?
      • Pascal's bookie 21.1.1

        9 July 2010 at 4:28 pm

        You’re pretty sucky at pretending to be ‘not-hs’.
        • comedy 21.1.1.1

          9 July 2010 at 4:36 pm

          WTF ?
      • mickysavage 21.1.2

        9 July 2010 at 8:23 pm

        But you can erect a really expensive tent and then take it down. Or you could renovate a slightly more expensive building for use in the future. As an Auckland ratepayer I wish they would think about the long term effect.
    • felix 21.2

      9 July 2010 at 4:23 pm

      Exactly ianmac – they’re just a bit scruffy.

      No reason to destroy them just to put up more tacky rubbish.

      ts and comedy would’ve knocked over the Vic Park markets too, no doubt.
      • comedy 21.2.1

        9 July 2010 at 4:41 pm

        Not at all I love the Vic park buildings and architecture.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Park_Market
    • Richard 21.3

      9 July 2010 at 4:58 pm

      Yep. The sheds could be really good if some money was actually spent on them.

      For example, the Chelsea market in New York is built inside a renovated factory of similar(ish) vintage to the waterfront sheds. It looks really good, and is similar to what I imagine could be done with the sheds. See the images at this link for an idea of what of the Chelsea market looks like.

      Real cities can manage this sort of thing. And, as others have commented, Auckland did manage something similar in the past with the Victoria Park markets.
      • prism 21.3.1

        9 July 2010 at 8:54 pm

        Great style at Chelsea. Probably flasher than we need for robust men like Andy Haden.
        This is what Chelsea market has –
        Check the calendar for events, or swing by everyday for fresh sushi and a chocolate-almond croissant. Sip a little cappuccino in a free Wi-Fi environment, decorated with stone sculptures, a new façade, copper walls, a rotating photo gallery and an indoor waterfall. Then pick up your meat, produce, wine, cheese, bread, flowers, and everything else you might …

        And they remember their past business history which affected the greats and grand parents. It was where the oreo cookie started (now in my supermarket) and where NABISCO was formed, a giant biscuit compamy that bought out our Griffins in the 1960’s.

        The old sheds at the wharf mighn’t be flash emough in the opiniom of today’s fashionistas and techno kids but they too have a history that is relevant to us now.
22. Pascal's bookie 22

    9 July 2010 at 3:52 pm

    “How is it Key’s party central?”

    Here’s how
    • Jim Nald 22.1

      10 July 2010 at 12:20 am

      I’m not sure it is do-able for Messrs Key, McCully, Bobo et al. That is far more ambitious than launching a new pizza.
    • BLiP 22.2

      10 July 2010 at 12:54 am

      From your link:

      “I see Queen’s Wharf as the cornerstone of this Rugby World Cup phase of the waterfront development.”

      Other projects include the redevelopment of the Jellicoe St and North Wharf area, planning for a Marine Events Centre and the Halsey St extension wharf at Viaduct Harbour.

      The developments will leave a “legacy of infrastructure that will enhance the visitor experience long after the cheers have faded and the scores are forgotten”.

      It will also help bring New Zealand out of the recession, Mr Key said.

      Key is just such a dick!
      • Jim Nald 22.2.1

        10 July 2010 at 1:08 am

        And if I were to swallow that, I would be a greater dick.
        Hello New Zealand?
23. Mr Shennanigans 23

    9 July 2010 at 4:44 pm

    Has anyone explained why you can’t have Party Central in Shed 10?
24. Anne 24

    9 July 2010 at 5:45 pm

    As ARC Councillor, Joel Cayford said on Radio NZ yesterday “Murray McCully is behaving like a bull at a gate. He thinks his idea must take precedence over everyone else”. I won’t say what I think of that man – it’s unprintable.
    • Mr Shennanigans 24.1

      9 July 2010 at 9:48 pm

      Which man – McCully or Cayford?
      • Anne 24.1.1

        9 July 2010 at 10:00 pm

        I asked for that Mr Shennanigans. 🙂
        Suffice to say have never liked the one beginning with M.

        Note to self: check before you submit.
25. I dreamed a dream 25

    9 July 2010 at 6:43 pm

    It is John Key who created the whole debacle, because he so desperately wanted people to think that Party Central was all his fantastic visionary idea. But what he kept from the public, or at least it wasn’t clearly made known, was that a party central was part of the contractual agreement for NZ to host the RWC. Well, I did not realise that it was part of the contractual agreement. I thought it was Key’s idea.

    I thought it was Key’s idea until I read what Murray McCully said, “We have to provide a fan zone in downtown Auckland for those who can’t get to the games, that’s part of our contractual obligation to the IRB (International Rugby Board).”

    A fan zone (or party central) has always been part of the agreement with the IRB, most likely before Key even became prime minister. Well, Key wanted the glory as the architect of the party central. Now he can take the custard too.

    If he had not tried to hijack the party central and impose his ideas on it, everything would likely have worked out fine. But he just had to mess it up!
26. Luke.xensen 26

    9 July 2010 at 6:57 pm

    The IRB contract did not require using Queens Wharf as party central. That was a Key directive.
    Auckland City were all set to use the newly refurbished Aotea Square as party central.
    Can’t see how spending $7million on a temporary structure offers good value for money.
    Theres plenty of room for ultra modern buildings at the Viaduct/Tank Farm.
    Good to keep some character in at least one part of Auckland.
27. mickysavage 27

    9 July 2010 at 8:17 pm

    I cannot believe how insanely stupid “Party Central” is.

    1. It is meant to be a family friendly place sponsored by Heineken.

    2. It is promoted by a private enterprise supporting Government but it will suck patrons and turnover away from nearby businesses.

    3. The ARC is being criticised for being “short sighted” but for a huge price the Government intends to demolish a building with potential future use so they can erect a tent.

    4. The expectation is that a thriving sophisticated business will be set up in 12 months time and that it will then be able to be wound up in 14 months time.

    Am I missing something?
    • loota 27.1

      9 July 2010 at 11:30 pm

      Oh, don’t be like that. Party central will give us the valuable event experience needed to organise and hold the Olympics in 2016. And we should put McCully in charge of that, too.
      • Jim Nald 27.1.1

        10 July 2010 at 12:08 am

        yeah Right!
    • BLiP 27.2

      10 July 2010 at 12:58 am

      Am I missing something?

      It’ll be freezing cold, over priced, full of rugby boofheads, miles from parking/transport, and the last place a parent would want to take their kids to watch the footie.
    • big bruv 27.3

      10 July 2010 at 8:32 am

      Micky

      “I cannot believe how insanely stupid “Party Central’ is.”

      On this we agree, although, funnily enough I do not remember you saying anything about it when the Labour government and the NZRU signed up to host the RWC.

      As for the RWC, can anybody tell me why our leaders (be they Labour or National) think it is a good idea to give our money to the duplicitous NZRU so they can host a minor world championship?

      If Rugby wants to host the RWC then good for them, just do not ask Kiwis to pay for it then shut them out of the final (in a stadium they bloody well paid for) by charging prices that the ordinary bloke can never hope to pay.
      • comedy 27.3.1

        10 July 2010 at 8:53 am

        “can anybody tell me why our leaders (be they Labour or National) think it is a good idea to give our money to the duplicitous NZRU so they can host a minor world championship?”

        Because they are populist morons.
      • felix 27.3.2

        10 July 2010 at 9:08 am

        big bludge,

        You are in no position to comment on the honouring of agreements.

        You are also in no position to comment on monetary payment.

        Until you pay your debt you are voiding any comment you make on such matters.

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 8 July 2010 at 7:52 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS