| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 136915 | 2014-04-29 23:39:00 | Residents in Christchurch "fed up" with flooding! | mzee (3324) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1373789 | 2014-04-29 23:39:00 | If you build your house on sand in a river bed you will get flooding. Scrap Christchurch and rebuild on higher ground. | mzee (3324) | ||
| 1373790 | 2014-04-30 00:14:00 | If you build your house on sand in a river bed you will get flooding. Scrap Christchurch and rebuild on higher ground. That's actually inaccurate. The reason for the continued flooding is more because the ground subsided after the liqufaction that happened during the earthquake, not because Christchurch was built on a river bed. The whole of the Canterbury plains are alluvial but that doesn't mean that they flood every time it rains. |
Webdevguy (17166) | ||
| 1373791 | 2014-04-30 00:38:00 | Been here 18 months and only 18 to go can't happen soon enough floods no problem here in Halswell | gary67 (56) | ||
| 1373792 | 2014-04-30 03:06:00 | That's actually inaccurate. The reason for the continued flooding is more because the ground subsided after the liqufaction that happened during the earthquake, not because Christchurch was built on a river bed. . In fact it was. Well, swamps anyway. www.teara.govt.nz www.nzine.co.nz Originally, the area that is now Christchurch was an extensive coastal wetland, thickly forested with matai and totara, and other swamp forest species. However, much of this forest was burnt off (whether deliberately or accidentally, we do not know) by the earliest inhabitants of the area possibly around 1000 AD. By the time Europeans arrived in the 19th century, there were only isolated patches of forest, with a mixture of tussock grassland and swamp making up most of the area. the settlers succeeded in draining the wetlands for farmland and settlements, and channeling the many waterways into two more “orderly” rivers: the newly named “Avon” and “Heathcote”. |
pctek (84) | ||
| 1373793 | 2014-04-30 05:22:00 | Don’t expect anything to happen any time soon. :groan: Given the rate of progress, the guys with all the different coloured stickers will still be going around in circles in ten years time taking them from one building and sticking them on a different one. Australia has rebuilt after their floods and fires, and Japan has rebuilt after their tsunami, but Christchurch is still manufacturing Bull S**T instead of fixing the problems. :rolleyes: |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1373794 | 2014-04-30 05:54:00 | On the 5 September 2010 the government should have taken land by Public Works Act, between Hornby and Rolleston and by now there would have been quite a new satellite city, oh sorry this is New Zealand the country of committees and meetings . In 1973 the late Sir James WATTIE stated that this was where Christchurch growth would be . Instead the powers that be kept building beside the Avon and Heathcote rivers, even almost into the Avon estuary, no one has even taken blame for that fiasco . Council meet on the 12 May to discuss the flood fix, that will mean more on going meetings . Large scale dredging of both rivers would seem to be a good start, but that's probably too simple . I boarded in Aylesford Street area back in 1964 and the Dudley creek along there always ran high with a good downfall of wet weather . Lurking . |
Lurking (218) | ||
| 1373795 | 2014-04-30 08:20:00 | River training would help a lot, straighten, widen and dredge to allow the water to flow quicker. A dam or two could also help. | mzee (3324) | ||
| 1373796 | 2014-04-30 08:25:00 | River draining would help a lot, straighten, widen and dredge to allow the water to flow quicker. A dam or two could also help. I saw on the news that this will cost $50Mil and take about 3 years to complete.. |
paulw (1826) | ||
| 1373797 | 2014-04-30 08:59:00 | Cities are rarely planned they just happen, usually due to a convenient port or river access for transport or some other reason that made sense at the time. Oh sure there are planners these days but it's a bit late to be saying "actually not the best place to build a city". In hind sight there are a lot of places that should have been left alone and cities built elsewhere. Just the way it is, a mixture of random chance and human nature. If it wasn't for work I don't think I'd have lived any where near a city myself. | dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1373798 | 2014-04-30 09:38:00 | I would either put my house on stilts or sell up and move to higher ground. I sure as hell wouldn't be whinging about something mother nature did. Build a house on a floodplain expect flooding as sure as night follows day. | prefect (6291) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||