Quick Poll. A new $60 million QLDC HQ - and where should it be built (if at all.)
There's a major QLDC workshop this Tuesday. Can you understand this QLDC consultants report? Rate it in our 30 second poll.
Analysis.
Ahead of a full, open to the public council workshop at 1.00 pm this Tuesday (May 27) a group of QLDC consultants has issued a self-declared "subjective" report that shifts the focus of a new $60 million council office building back towards the CBD and drops the Ladies Mile site from consideration.
The report, rich in complex and confusing infographics, is almost impossible to read and even harder to understand.
There's a link to the full report below.
To bring this debate back into the community arena, including an option for the council to not build a new office building at all, Crux has published a simple poll that will take less than 30 seconds to complete. Please check out the consultants report first and rate the quality of their work in our poll.
Here's a link to the consultants report.
Here's a link to the quick poll - including a chance to rate the quality and usefulness of the consultants report.
This must be left to the incoming council. It will be an election issue. Note that much of the justification for a CBD option is for staff convenience. Note too that administration buildings in city centers are dead lifeless spaces outside office hours. Even during "working hours" there is insufficent parking for ratepayers to gain access to a CBD location. To top it off, there is no explanation of possible complexities arising from any backroom deals that may have to be done to acquire land in the CBD. We have other more pressing priorities to improve our council. Press 'pause' to allow the new council to review this before we head into yet another expensive mistake.
Need we go any further than "Cost-Benefit Ratio (BCR)"? For goodness' sake. The document purpose is said to be "to provide background and technical information ... regarding the assessment framework", so why does it include actual implementation of that framework to present outcomes? The so-called "Balanced" scenario is beyond any ordinary joke, pitting Legibility (er, surely that's Visibility?) against Development Cost with equal weightings. Utter drivel! Kindergarten level decision-making. The other two are mere subjective constructs of the authors so why expand upon them? No explanation for any of the CBR figures is provided, so why publish them? I suppose that's because "These inform a judgement decision making exercises(sic) implicit(huh?) with weighting of each criteria”. What did we pay for this garbage?