All galleries can be seen through the ‘Gallery’ link in the header, or click here (especially if you’re on a mobile device). I append to this entry through the month.
Earlier this month, I attended a session on the potential of a Wellington super-city, and was interested to note that the mood, that was so dead set against one in 2010, had begun to shift. In fact, in the previous month, the outgoing chairman of Price Waterhouse Coopers (I can’t bring myself to write that as a single month), John Shewan, presented a session where he outlined the pros and cons. Super-city is in the Zeitgeist for Wellington now, and where the moves have come from, I don’t know.
The concerns in Wellington seem to surround the issue of representation, as the popular image of super-city seems to be a tall managerial structure where a super-mayor (God help us if that term is used) sits over earlier structures. I don’t think the Auckland experience has borne this out, but there are definitely concerns over the unfunded community boards, something that Wellington might learn from.
Judging by the responses from the session, those for a super-city seem to be around the 40 per cent mark, while those sceptical of one hover around 60âand this is a totally unscientific count. But the fact that proponents have moved from under 5 per cent to around 40 in the middle of Mayor Celia Wade-Brown’s first term is probably heartening for the super-camp, who might wish to extrapolate it heading further north come 2013.
Our table seemed to be more pro- than anti-, and we were the last to report in. I was asked to speak on the table’s behalf and I noted to Garry Poole, CEO of the Wellington City Council, that if there was one thing worse than coming third, it was coming last. However, the efficiency argument held some sway among our participants, and that Auckland itself, according to John’s figures, was forecast to make some real savings in administration. The present system, it might be argued, is flawed anyway (what system isn’t?) so should we really wait till Wellington is in crisis mode before we consider change?
I did add one note about the efficiency argument, perhaps lost on the audience. I pointed out that Slater Walker, the corporate raiders in Britain of the 1960s, got away with a lot because of the same argumentâthat its actions were necessary for the efficiency of British industry. As it turned out, it led to the demise of British industry (if I were to generalize). But, as long as we were talking about true efficiencies forced into being through legislationâfor getting two councils on to the same software system is hard enough without a concerted effortâthen that might be a good thing for ratepayers.
The popular image of the super-structure might not be that relevant, and this is where technology could serve us for a change. Representation is the biggest concern of those who are against the super-city, so why not adopt technological measures, such as capturing ideas and intel electronically from around the Wellington region, so they can be used by the council? (As in 2010, I maintain that 130,000 voters are far smarter collectively than a single council.) Flatten the structure so mayor and council can hear the concerns of citizensâand keep it flattened, just as we were taught at business school. If Auckland’s biggest mistake was in community board funding, is it possible to investigate how they can remain funded properly here?
There are way too many issues to discuss in a single blog post, but I’m just flagging some for discussion. What are your feelings out there? Is the mood shifting? Can I stop prefixing words with super-?
I saw the premiĂšre episode of No Ordinary Family, plus a bit of the second, and I couldn’t help but think of this:
Some folks fly to a strange place, have a plane crash, come back with special powers. One of them is an attractive blonde woman.
Where it differs is that one of them looks suspiciously like a really young version of Dr Alan Quartermaine Sr on General Hospital.
Before there was the Twingo, there was the Renault 4. It celebrates its 50th anniversary this year, as I was reminded on Tumblr earlier today. From Autocade:
Renault 4 (R1121). 1961â94 (prod. 8,135,424). 5-door estate, utility convertible. F/F, 603, 747, 782, 845, 956, 1108 cmÂł (4 cyl. OHV). Replacement for 4CV conceived as a response to CitroĂ«n 2CV, which was overtaking the Renault in sales. Soft suspension for rural buyers who might use 4s on the farm; front-wheel-drive transmission and four-wheel independent suspension. Separate chassis and body, rather than 4CVâs monocoque, for simplicity. Four-speed gearbox from 1968, the year of the 4âs facelift. GTL with 1·1-litre from 1978. Additional models added, such as fourgonette in 1962; limited-edition Parisienne in 1964 with a tartan pattern, in association with Elle magazine; Plein Air from 1968 to 1970; Rodeo from 1970 to 1987. Rebodied 4, called the Renault 6, from 1968, but the utilitarian 4 managed to outlive it. Billancourt production ceased 1987, with Slovenia the last country to put out a 4 in 1994.
There was also its lesser known sibling, the Renault 3, a sort of poverty version of the 4:
Renault 3 (R1121). 1961â2 (prod. 2,526; other source lists 2,571). 5-door estate. F/F, 603 cmÂł (4 cyl. OHV). Entry-level Renault based on the 4, but without any luxuriesâno hubcaps, interior door trims, third side window, or grille. Engine in the 3CV class in France, but since a Renault 4L cost little more, most customers opted for the better specified car. Rugged and simple, rivalling base 2CVs as intended by Renault.
I canât explain why I like the Steve McQueen Ford Puma ad and dislike this one with Audrey Hepburn, even though I think the world of both actors. In terms of tacky, I reckon this one takes the cake as a celebrity endorsement:
Come to think of it, this is worse. I believe the original was Japanese (I saw stills of this campaign many years ago), but this is in Mandarin: