When you order the vessel, don’t you know it’s specifications so you can plan around the berthing requirements?
Or does it just turn up and we see what way the trains go on and work something out if it doesn’t fit?
Maybe we need Mike to do the plans.
No thanks from me…. I wouldn‘t want to have anything to do with the cluster that’s happening down there. I’ve successfully avoided working on public projects like these. Ever noticed how the more public and controversial a project is, the more likely it is to win an Architectural Award… it never seems to be based on the merits of the design but to give legitimacy to bad design. The more the public dislike a project the more likely it is too win.
While I haven’t seen anything of the design of the terminals, I do think there was (from the limited information made available to the public) a very big problem in the initial brief given to the designers and engineers regarding the resilience of the project. The Building Act and Building Code says that buildings/structures like these terminals need to last for 50 years. The problem with the brief the designers are working to is that it wanted the terminals to last 100 years. In order to look at cost saving (in order to see if that is more palatable to the new government) they’ve reduced that to eighty years.
The problem with that is not the aesthetics of project (the form or bits you can see) but the function of it (how it works and, particularly in this case, the structure and durability of it). To go for a functional aspect required for the durability of a project to last 50 years as opposed to 80 years (let alone the original 100 years) takes the cost up significantly.
Especially when you consider the life of the ferries would probably be less than 50 years. Who is to say that ferries built then will suit the terminals they want built now? With replacement ferries being a generation or two or even three on from the Korean ones currently on order, we would most likely have to replace the terminals then anyway.
Why aren’t we being clever and build infrastructure that is likely to be replaced to match the life of the new ferries? We could still get the new ferries and terminals but at a significant cost saving.
The previous government‘s philosophy of “more money fixes everything” didn‘t work without accountability.
But the new government has made a mistake too, in my opinion. Instead of pulling the plug entirely, they should have told KiwiRail not to proceed with anymore design or construction work until a review of the cost savings of reducing the resiliency of the terminals was down to match the projected life of the ferries.
But scrapping a project seems without reviewing it seems to fit within their MO….. like SmokeFree, gun control, etc.